[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76664-76672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27933]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 371

[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-17008]
RIN 2126-AA84


Brokers of Household Goods by Motor Vehicle

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); request for 
comments on petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA seeks comments on whether additional regulations for 
property brokers of household goods (HHG) in interstate or foreign 
commerce are necessary and, if so, what these regulations should 
include. We have granted a petition from the American Moving and 
Storage Association to initiate this ANPRM. HHG property brokers sell, 
offer for sale, negotiate for, or hold themselves out by solicitation, 
advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, 
transportation of HHG in interstate commerce by motor carriers for 
compensation. This action is necessary to help determine whether the 
general property broker regulations have failed to adequately protect 
consumers during HHG transportation.

DATES: You must submit comments concerning this ANPRM on or before 
February 22, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit general comments identified by DOT Docket 
Management System Number FMCSA-2004-17008 by any of the following 
methods:
     Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number for this potential 
regulatory action. Note that all comments received will be posted 
without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal 
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Keenan, (202) 385-2400, 
Commercial Enforcement Division (MC-ECI), FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket: For access to the docket to read

[[Page 76665]]

background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at 
any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the 
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). This statement is also 
available at http://dms.dot.gov.

History of Our Property Broker Regulations

    We and our predecessor agencies, the Interstate Commerce Commission 
(ICC) and Federal Highway Administration, have regulated property 
brokers for many years. The ICC decided on May 16, 1949 (Ex Parte MC-39 
``Practices of Property Brokers,'' 49 M.C.C. 277, at 286) that it was 
necessary to regulate all property brokers, including HHG brokers \1\, 
in interstate or foreign commerce. In that proceeding, the ICC decided 
it was unnecessary to regulate HHG brokers separately from general 
freight brokers.
    The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-159, 
December 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1748, in establishing FMCSA, granted to us 
continued regulatory oversight of the property broker regulations.

Brokers' Increasingly Significant Role

    Brokers generally, and HHG brokers in particular, have played an 
increasingly significant role over the last 26 years in the 
transportation industry. Their role, when executed properly, is that of 
an arranger of transportation. This role is very helpful to the small 
commercial shipper, and to the unsophisticated consumer that is 
shipping HHG. However, since Congress substantially deregulated the 
motor carrier, broker, and freight forwarder industry through the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, December 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 
803 (ICCTA), FMCSA has received complaints that a segment of the 
industry may be engaging in unscrupulous business practices which 
defraud motor carriers as well as consumers. The Internet has become a 
very convenient medium that allows HHG brokers to expand their customer 
base by advertising their services to a wider range of customers. News 
media have reported that many consumers now use the Internet to seek 
the best possible prices for all of their consumer purchases, including 
transportation of HHG.
    Many of the complaints the agency receives involve HHG brokers who 
mislead consumers with lures of inexpensive transportation charges. In 
a typical case, the HHG broker enters into a contract with the 
consumer, takes a sizeable deposit, and arranges to have a motor 
carrier handle the shipment. When the shipper's goods are in the 
possession of the carrier, the carrier then demands additional freight 
charges. The complaints we receive show when problems between the 
consumer and motor carrier arise, the HHG broker disavows any 
responsibility for the motor carrier's actions, despite the HHG 
broker's role in acquiring the carrier's services on behalf of the 
shipper. FMCSA has not proven collusion or conspiracy between brokers 
and carriers in these cases. However, we believe this is an area of 
transportation that deserves further attention. We need to determine 
how extensive our role should be in regulating the HHG broker industry.

Current Regulations

    HHG brokers must comply with the regulations in 49 CFR part 371, 
which apply to all regulated property brokers. We summarize these 
regulations below.

49 CFR Part 365--Rules Governing Applications for Operating Authority

    A broker must register with us in accordance with part 365.

49 CFR Part 366--Designation of Process Agent

    A broker must file designations of persons upon whom court process 
may be served. Every broker must make a designation for each State in 
which its offices are located or in which contracts will be written.

49 CFR Part 387 Subpart C--Surety Bonds and Policies of Insurance for 
Motor Carriers and Property Brokers

    A broker must have a surety bond or trust fund in effect for 
$10,000. The FMCSA will not issue a property broker license until a 
surety bond or trust fund for the full limits of liability prescribed 
is in effect. The broker license will remain valid or effective only as 
long as a surety bond or trust fund remains in effect and will ensure a 
minimum level of financial responsibility for the broker.

49 CFR 371.3 Records To Be Kept by Brokers

    A broker must keep a record of each of its transactions, and keep 
the records for three years. Each party to a brokered transaction has 
the right to review the record of the transaction applicable to them. 
For example, motor carriers accepting transportation shipments from 
brokers have the right to review any of the required documents retained 
by brokers. Shippers also are entitled to examine broker records 
containing the motor carrier's address and USDOT number. Brokers may 
keep master lists of consignors and the address and registration number 
of the motor carrier, rather than repeating this information for each 
transaction. Each transaction record must show:
    (1) The name and address of the consignor;
    (2) The name, address, and registration number of the originating 
motor carrier;
    (3) The bill of lading or freight bill number;
    (4) The amount of compensation received by the broker for the 
brokerage service performed and the name of the payer;
    (5) A description of any non-brokerage service performed in 
connection with each shipment or other non-brokerage activity, the 
amount of compensation received for the service, and the name of the 
payer; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HHG brokers are not themselves HHG motor carriers (persons 
providing motor vehicle transportation of HHG) or HHG freight 
forwarders. HHG freight forwarders are persons holding themselves 
out to the general public (other than as motor carriers) to provide 
transportation of HHG, unaccompanied baggage, or used automobiles 
for compensation. In the ordinary course of an HHG freight 
forwarder's business, it:
    (A) Assembles and consolidates, or provides for assembling and 
consolidating, shipments and performs or provides for break-bulk and 
distribution operations of the shipments;
    (B) Assumes responsibility for the transportation from the place 
of receipt to the place of destination; and
    (C) Uses for any part of the transportation motor carriers or 
water carriers (persons providing water transportation for 
compensation) subject to jurisdiction under subtitle IV of title 49 
of the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, December 29, 
1995, 109 Stat. 803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) The amount of any freight charges collected by the broker and 
the date of payment to the motor carrier.

49 CFR 371.7 Misrepresentation

    A broker must not perform or offer to perform any brokerage service 
(including advertising) in any name other than that in which FMCSA or 
one of our predecessor agencies has issued its registration. A broker 
must not, directly or indirectly, represent its operations to be that 
of a motor carrier. Any advertising must show the true nature of the 
broker role in services offered.

[[Page 76666]]

49 CFR 371.9 Rebating and Compensation

    A broker must not charge or receive compensation from a motor 
carrier for brokerage service where: (1) The broker owns or has a 
material beneficial interest in the shipment; or (2) the broker is able 
to exercise control over the shipment because it owns the shipper, the 
shipper owns the broker or there is common ownership of the two. A 
broker must not give or offer to give anything of value to any 
consumer, consignor, or consignee (or their officers or employees), 
except inexpensive advertising items given for promotional purposes.

49 CFR 371.10 Duties and Obligations of Brokers

    Where the broker acts on behalf of a person bound by law, or our 
regulation, as to the transmittal of bills or payments, the broker must 
also abide by the law or regulations which apply to that person.

49 CFR 371.13 Accounting

    Each broker who engages in any other business must maintain 
accounts so that the revenues and expenses relating to the brokerage 
portion of its business are segregated from its other activities. 
Expenses that are common must be allocated on an equitable basis; 
however, the broker must be prepared to explain the basis for the 
allocation to us and the courts.

49 CFR 375.409 May Household Goods Brokers Provide Estimates?

    We published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) applying to operations of 
HHG motor carriers on June 11, 2003 (68 FR 35064). We developed the 
rule to improve public understanding of our commercial rules, and to 
help consumers understand their roles and responsibilities along with 
those of HHG motor carriers to prevent moving disputes. We inserted 
Sec.  375.409 in the IFR in an effort to make HHG carriers more 
responsible for the actions of HHG brokers who provide estimates on 
their behalf. Twenty-seven years ago, the ICC concluded that brokers 
were prohibited from providing estimates because the duty to comply 
with the HHG regulations rests with the motor carrier, and shippers 
aggrieved by an act or omission of a broker would be unprotected by our 
regulations. In Entry Control of Brokers, 126 M.C.C. 476, 520 (1977), 
the ICC stated:

    For example, if a broker provides a c.o.d. [cash on delivery] 
shipper with an estimate it has made, on which the shipper relies, 
the shipper would be deprived of the protection of 49 CFR 1056.8(b) 
[now 49 CFR 375.405(b)(8)] of the household goods regulations, which 
provides that where the transportation charges exceed a carrier-made 
estimate by more than 10 percent, the shipper must pay only 110 
percent of the charges upon delivery and is given a period of 15 
days following delivery to make payment in full. Since this 
protection applies only to carrier-made estimates, a c.o.d. shipper 
who relies upon an incorrect estimate of a broker will have to pay 
the carrier's entire freight charges upon delivery, regardless of 
the extent the actual charges might exceed the broker's estimate.

    As we noted in the preamble to the IFR (June 11, 2003, 68 FR 
35078), although brokers may not enter into agency agreements with HHG 
motor carriers because they are required to exercise discretion in 
allocating traffic among carriers, we believe it is permissible for a 
motor carrier to enter into a more limited type of agreement 
authorizing the broker to provide estimates on behalf of the motor 
carrier. Under such an agreement, the motor carrier must adopt the 
broker's estimate as a carrier-issued estimate and incorporate it into 
the order for service and bill of lading for purposes of compliance 
with part 375, particularly the 110 percent rule. We believe that under 
these circumstances, the individual shipper would not be deprived of 
the protections provided in part 375 because the carrier would still be 
held accountable for complying with that part. However, an HHG broker 
may not issue an estimate without entering into such an agreement with 
an HHG motor carrier because otherwise the requirements of part 375 
would not apply to the broker-issued estimate. Thus, the IFR authorized 
an HHG broker to provide estimates, but only if it has a written 
agreement with the carrier under which the carrier agrees to adopt the 
estimate as its own.

Petition for Rulemaking

    The American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) petitioned us on 
March 6, 2003, to initiate a rulemaking to amend 49 CFR part 371, 
``Brokers of Property,'' by imposing specific requirements on HHG 
brokers. AMSA's petition is in the docket. Title 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, 
part B and 49 CFR 1.73 authorize us to adopt regulations for property 
brokers of HHG in interstate or foreign commerce.
    AMSA asserts there are increasing numbers of ``moving-related'' Web 
sites hosted by unscrupulous HHG brokers, which have resulted in 
numerous complaints from consumers who use the Internet to secure the 
services of an HHG motor carrier.
    AMSA's petition states a significant number of the complaints it 
receives involve the same Internet companies, many of which are based 
in Florida. AMSA argues the fact these companies are involved in moves 
having no connection to Florida as an origin or destination 
demonstrates the impact of the Internet on these HHG broker 
arrangements and how the Internet is being used to entrap unsuspecting 
consumers. AMSA states it often receives complaints from consumers who 
have dealt with a Florida-based Internet broker, who in turn arranged a 
move from a non-Florida origin to another non-Florida destination. AMSA 
states once these brokers establish a business relationship with the 
consumer, they require payment of a deposit of several hundred dollars 
or more, fade from the picture, and leave the consumer to deal with, in 
most cases, a motor carrier who has failed to register with FMCSA. AMSA 
believes that a significant network of unscrupulous HHG brokers and HHG 
motor carriers is functioning with the sole purpose of bilking the 
moving public by demanding charges that bear no relation to the 
legitimate costs of moving, or by collecting charges for services that 
are not performed.
    AMSA provided ten additional examples of complaints it has received 
to illustrate the nature of the problems being experienced by the 
moving public. The examples generally involve circumstances similar to 
the Florida example discussed in the previous paragraph.
    AMSA wants us to amend our regulations to:
     Specifically name and include HHG brokers in 49 CFR part 
371, Brokers of Property;
     Require an HHG broker to identify itself as a broker and 
provide its location and telephone number;
     Add a requirement for HHG brokers to provide consumers 
with 49 CFR part 375, Appendix A, the pamphlet ``Your Rights and 
Responsibilities When You Move;''
     Add a requirement that an HHG broker must only use FMCSA-
registered HHG motor carriers (those with a U.S. DOT identification 
number, insurance on file with us, and registered to transport HHG in 
interstate or foreign commerce);
     Add a requirement for full written disclosure concerning 
estimates in advance of the move;
     Add a requirement that the broker will refund consumer 
deposits if the consumer cancels the shipment;
     Add a requirement to advise the consumer about the 
existence of the HHG broker's surety bond/trust fund; and

[[Page 76667]]

     Add a requirement to report illegal operations of HHG 
carriers to us.
    AMSA's concerns include lack of public awareness and advertising 
practices of unscrupulous HHG brokers. AMSA argues that its suggested 
regulations would:
     Fill an existing regulatory gap; and
     Ensure that HHG brokers do not use the Internet as a 
device to avoid regulation.
    AMSA suggests that we consider a regulatory solution applying only 
to brokers of HHG. It explains that the primary concept underlying its 
regulatory solution is disclosure. Its regulatory alternative would 
apply regardless of the medium through which services are advertised 
and would therefore ensure that the Internet is not used as a device to 
avoid regulation.

Suggested Definitions in Present Section 371.2

    AMSA suggests we consider adding paragraphs (e) and (f), defining 
``household goods broker'' and ``individual shipper.'' AMSA said it 
designed its definitions to mirror the definitions of ``household 
goods'' and ``brokers'' contained in the statute, and the definition of 
``shipper'' contained in the consumer protection regulations under 49 
CFR part 375 applicable to HHG motor carriers. AMSA suggests we 
consider amending paragraph (c) to include the transportation of HHG 
within the definition of brokerage service.

Suggested Section 371.14

    AMSA suggests we consider adding a new Sec.  371.14 applicable only 
to HHG brokers.
    Suggested paragraph (a) would subject HHG brokers to both the 
existing and the new regulations.
    Suggested paragraph (b) would require the HHG broker to identify 
whether it has HHG broker or HHG motor carrier authority, and reveal 
its location and telephone number so that customers can communicate 
with a person. AMSA states it designed this paragraph to remove the 
cloak of anonymity.
    Suggested paragraph (c) would require HHG brokers to use only 
FMCSA-registered HHG motor carriers in an effort to eliminate or reduce 
the use of unauthorized carriers. AMSA believes this will help ensure 
that the HHG motor carrier performing service has insurance, offers 
arbitration, is a responsible entity in the event of a dispute, and 
otherwise is held to the requirements of the consumer protection 
regulations under 49 CFR part 375.
    Suggested paragraph (d) would require HHG brokers to provide the 
pamphlet, ``Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move'' to 
shippers, explain HHG motor carrier liability for loss and damage, and 
advise consumers of the availability of arbitration.
    AMSA believes it is appropriate that the broker provide this 
information when first contacted by the consumer. AMSA argues our 
regulations presently require HHG motor carriers to furnish this 
information, but often times HHG motor carriers do not provide it. The 
overlapping requirement would serve to provide a safety net for 
consumers to ensure that they receive this important information.
    Suggested paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) would require full 
written disclosure in advance regarding shipment charges. A persistent 
source of disputes among HHG motor carriers, brokers, and shippers 
involves estimates of shipment charges. AMSA states some estimates are 
simply inaccurate, while others are deliberately deceptive. AMSA 
believes this is often the case with Internet quotes given solely on 
the basis of a customer's oral or electronic description of the goods 
to be transported without an actual physical shipment survey. AMSA also 
believes disputes arise when brokers do not inform individual shippers 
the estimate is not binding, and the actual weight of the shipment 
determines the charges or the estimate does not cover unanticipated 
services at delivery. AMSA states the customer is often simply given an 
oral quotation that HHG motor carriers subsequently disavow.
    AMSA believes requiring full written disclosure in advance of the 
move could prevent many disputes. If brokers disclose at the outset of 
the transaction all of the factors that could affect the HHG motor 
carrier's charges, customers are less likely to claim surprise or that 
they are the subject of a bait and switch maneuver. Alternatively, AMSA 
believes that if the broker does not disclose to the customer that 
actual charges may differ from the quote, and the reasons why, the HHG 
motor carrier should not be authorized to collect a higher amount.
    Suggested paragraph (i) would require full disclosure of the terms 
governing deposits and forfeiture requirements before payment of a 
deposit. A frequent complaint AMSA hears from consumers involves 
deposits required to secure broker service. Presently, AMSA states, 
there is no prohibition against requiring a deposit. Inasmuch as an 
Internet customer can disappear as readily as an unscrupulous broker, 
AMSA believes it may be prudent to permit a deposit from a customer to 
secure the transportation service. By the same token, AMSA states if 
the customer cancels the request for service before the move, the 
deposit could be returned in varying amounts, depending upon how close 
or far in advance the customer provides notice of cancellation. In any 
case, AMSA believes brokers should disclose the terms governing 
deposits and forfeitures before a deposit can be demanded.
    Suggested paragraph (j) would require the HHG broker to advise the 
consumer/shipper about the existence of its surety bond or trust fund 
agreement. Due to the nature of the broker's business, AMSA believes 
unscrupulous brokers are able to ``close shop'' and disappear, leaving 
shippers and HHG motor carriers without any recourse. Accordingly, we 
require brokers to have a bond or trust agreement as a protective 
measure for shippers and carriers in such an event. See Property Broker 
Security For Protection of Public, 4 I.C.C. 2nd 358 (1988). The AMSA 
suggested regulation would require HHG brokers to disclose the 
existence of the bond or trust agreement, so the consumer is aware 
there is the potential for recourse.
    Suggested paragraph (k) would require HHG brokers to identify and 
disclose to individual shippers AMSA's suggested regulations. AMSA 
states many consumers are unaware of their rights and the 
responsibilities of service providers prescribed by us. AMSA believes 
this requirement would serve to make consumers aware of these rights 
and responsibilities.
    Suggested paragraph (l) would require HHG brokers to report 
violations of regulations by HHG motor carriers to us. AMSA believes 
this would enhance enforcement of our regulations. Some consumers, 
subjected to unlawful practices by HHG motor carriers failing to comply 
with, or who violate existing HHG regulations under 49 CFR part 375, do 
not know where or to whom such violations should be reported. Since 
brokers are typically the only independent point of contact a consumer 
may have with the service provider, AMSA believes it is appropriate to 
require the broker to report violations to us in an effort to improve 
the remedies available to consumers.
    Suggested paragraph (m) would prohibit misleading and deceptive 
trade practices. Before the ICC revised the regulations in 1980, the 
broker regulations imposed an affirmative duty on brokers to fairly 
protect the interests of their shipper customers and prohibited 
misrepresentations and false

[[Page 76668]]

promises. Former 49 CFR 1045.10 (1978). Given the practices AMSA 
described in its petition and the Congressional directive to protect 
shippers in 49 U.S.C. 13904, Registration of Brokers, AMSA suggests 
reviving the former prohibition against misleading and deceptive 
practices.
    Further AMSA discussion and the text of its suggested regulations 
are contained in its petition, which is publicly available in docket 
FMCSA-2004-17008.

AMSA Petition Granted

    On December 11, 2003, we granted the AMSA petition and initiated 
this ANPRM to help determine whether the public, HHG brokers, motor 
carriers, and freight forwarders, as well as Federal and State 
regulatory agencies, believe there is sufficient need to amend 49 CFR 
part 371, as AMSA requested.

Scope and Necessity of Separate Regulations

    We request public comments regarding the need for any further 
regulatory changes, requirements, or non-regulatory alternatives 
specifically for HHG brokers. We would also like specific comments on 
what effects such regulatory or non-regulatory alternatives may have in 
deterring illegal HHG broker and motor carrier activities.
    We request information on the economic structure of the property 
broker entities which would be subject to potential actions we might 
consider and may initiate in a subsequent regulatory action, and the 
effect that such potential actions may have on small property brokers. 
We also ask whether current surety bond or trust fund requirements are 
sufficient to ensure a minimum level of financial responsibility.

Penalties

    Sanctions and penalties for HHG brokers are addressed in 49 U.S.C. 
chapter 149--Civil and Criminal Penalties (sections 14901 through 
14914), and 49 CFR part 386--Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, 
Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials Proceedings. 
Paragraph (c) of 49 U.S.C. 14901 requires that when we are determining 
and negotiating the amount of a civil penalty concerning the 
transportation of HHG, we are to take into account the degree of 
culpability, any history of such prior conduct, the degree of harm to 
shippers, ability to pay, the effect on ability to do business, whether 
the shipper has been adequately compensated before institution of the 
proceeding, and such other matters as fairness may require.
    Section 14901(d) requires a motor carrier or freight forwarder of 
household goods, or their receiver or trustee, that does not comply 
with any regulation relating to the protection of individual shippers, 
to be liable for a minimum penalty of $1,100 per violation.\2\ No 
comparable sanction or penalty relating to the protection of individual 
shippers, however, exists currently in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 149 for 
brokers or HHG brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-
134, Title III, Chapter 10, Sec. 31001, par. (s), 110 Stat. 1321-
373] amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 
1990 [Pub. L. 101-410, October 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 890)]. We must 
adjust for inflation ``each civil monetary penalty provided by law'' 
within our jurisdiction after having published the regulation in the 
Federal Register. The last time we made this adjustment for 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 149 was on March 31, 2003 (68 FR 15383). Pursuant to 
that authority and this Federal Register, the inflation-adjusted 
civil penalties listed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of Appendix B 
to 49 CFR part 386 supersede the corresponding civil penalty amounts 
listed in 49 U.S.C. chapter 149 (14901 through 14914).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comment on the enforcement strategies we should consider 
for any potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM. We 
also seek comment on the range of appropriate sanctions or penalties we 
should consider for HHG brokers, alternative remedial actions we may 
consider, and whether we should seek Congressional action to extend 49 
U.S.C. 14901(d) to property brokers, including HHG brokers.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We have determined this ANPRM is a significant regulatory action 
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of 
Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, 
February 26, 1979). We are considering setting up a new regulatory 
program for HHG brokers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce that 
could have an affect on other governments, particularly States. 
However, we are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential 
actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM, as there is some 
uncertainty as to the size of the specific HHG broker population that 
we may affect, given that the agency has not developed any specific set 
of alternatives.
    There are approximately 535 active HHG brokers currently registered 
in the FMCSA Licensing and Insurance (L&I) database http://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov/. There are also 1,087 HHG brokers included in the 
L&I database that are listed either as inactive (i.e., they have 
allowed their authority to lapse) or had their applications dismissed 
by FMCSA for some reason. It is unclear whether some portion of these 
1,087 inactive or dismissed HHG brokers may still be operating 
illegally in some capacity within the HHG broker industry, and would 
thus be affected by any potential actions we may initiate in response 
to this ANPRM. Additionally, we believe it is also logical to assume 
that there may be some HHG brokers operating illegally who have never 
registered with FMCSA. They of course would also be affected by any 
potential actions we may initiate. As the AMSA petition notes, there 
are ``no fewer than several hundred websites offering to perform, 
arrange, or manage moving services in one form or another on behalf of 
consumers,'' and presumably some portion of these entities have never 
registered with FMCSA and would therefore not appear in the above 
estimates of active and inactive/dismissed HHG brokers engaged in 
interstate or foreign commerce. Regardless, our initial research 
indicates that the population of HHG brokers potentially affected by 
any actions we may initiate is most likely less than 2,000 entities. 
However, to be sure, we are asking for comments from the public on our 
initial HHG broker population estimate as part of this ANPRM.
    FMCSA receives approximately 4,000 to 6,000 HHG consumer complaints 
annually. We receive approximately 50 complaints that would be 
classified as hostage loads per week. While these estimates include 
complaints against HHG motor carriers, the FMCSA Offices of 
Communications and Household Goods Enforcement believe the majority of 
these consumer complaints are related to HHG brokers.
    With regard to the economic impact on the HHG broker population, we 
do not anticipate that any potential action we may initiate would have 
a significant impact on the industry for two reasons. First, as noted 
above, we believe the total number of entities potentially affected is 
probably low. Secondly, while we have yet to recommend any specific 
sets of alternatives (without which we cannot conduct an economic 
evaluation), most appear to have a modest economic impact, in that they 
require greater disclosure to consumers or strengthen the opportunities 
for redress by the consumer. For instance, the AMSA petition recommends 
regulatory amendments to:
     Specifically name and include HHG brokers in 49 CFR part 
371;
     Require an HHG broker to identify itself as an HHG broker, 
provide its location, and telephone number;

[[Page 76669]]

     Require an HHG broker to provide consumers shipping HHG 
with 49 CFR part 375, Appendix A, the pamphlet ``Your Rights and 
Responsibilities When You Move;''
     Require an HHG broker to disclose estimates fully in 
writing in advance of an interstate or foreign HHG shipment;
     Require an HHG broker to refund consumer deposits, if the 
consumer cancels the interstate or foreign HHG shipment;
     Require an HHG broker to advise the consumer about the 
existence of the HHG broker's surety bond/trust fund agreement; and
     Require an HHG broker to report illegal operations of HHG 
motor carriers to FMCSA.
    However, because of the uncertainties noted above, we seek specific 
comment on the costs and benefits to the public and the impact 
potential alternatives would create on State governments and others.
    Before initiating an analysis, we must first determine whether 
there exists a significant failure or failings by HHG brokers to deal 
fairly and equitably with consumers. In particular, our analysis must 
distinguish actual failures from potential failures that can be 
resolved by non-regulatory means. If we find a significant failure by 
HHG brokers to deal fairly and equitably with consumers, our analysis 
must show how various alternatives will address the specified failures.

Appropriateness of Alternatives to Federal Regulation

    Even if comments in this proceeding confirm the HHG broker 
activities alleged in AMSA's petition, there may be no need for our 
regulatory intervention, if other means of addressing the HHG broker 
industry would adequately resolve the problem. We would like to know 
whether we should consider legislative measures that use economic 
incentives, such as changes in surety and trust fund provisions.
    Another important factor to consider in assessing the 
appropriateness of a Federal regulation is whether State or local 
regulation of HHG brokers may be an option. In this case, AMSA has 
stated Florida-based brokers are its largest problem. Where our 
regulations appear appropriate, our analysis will need to attempt to 
determine whether the burdens on interstate and foreign commerce 
arising from different State and local regulations, including the 
compliance costs imposed on national and international firms, are 
greater than the potential advantages of uniform application.
    We seek comments on these issues for our analysis of a possible 
notice of proposed rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility ACT

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (Pub. L. 
104-121), (RFA) requires Federal agencies to analyze the impact of 
regulatory alternatives on small entities, unless we certify that a 
regulatory alternative will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and to consider non-regulatory 
alternatives that could achieve our goal while minimizing the burden on 
small entities.
    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
we may initiate in response to this ANPRM. We need specific information 
about which industry classification designation is appropriate for 
property brokers under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)\3\ for the United 
States. We use the NAICS to analyze small entity impacts in accordance 
with the RFA. Some of the questions at the end of this ANPRM relate 
directly to the RFA and our need for NAICS information to assist us in 
properly analyzing small property broker entity impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OMB published the NAICS on April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17288) and 
an amendment on January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3826). NAICS is the North 
American international system for classifying establishments 
(individual business locations) by type of economic activity in 
Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Its purposes are: (1) To 
facilitate the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of 
data relating to establishments, and (2) to promote uniformity and 
comparability in the presentation and analysis of statistical data 
describing the North American economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe property brokers of HHG would classify and identify 
themselves generally under the NAICS code 488510 Freight Transportation 
Arrangement. The OMB description for 488510 is ``Shipping agents, 
Customs brokers, Freight forwarding, Marine shipping agency, Shipping 
agents (freight forwarding)'' as seen at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm and http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF488.HTM#N4885. We request HHG brokers provide information on the 
NAICS code they believe best fits their operation.
    The Statistics of U.S. Business (SUSB) for 2001 estimates that 
11,716 firms engage primarily in freight transportation arrangement. 
See ``Freight transportation arrangement NAICS 4885'' on page 14 of 
``Employer Firms, and Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS 
Codes, 2001'' at: http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us_01_n6.pdf. The 
U.S. Census Bureau provides the SUSB with data on employer firm size by 
NAICS code to the Small Business Administration. See http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/data.html. As we stated above, we believe HHG 
brokers would classify themselves as freight transportation arrangers, 
though we are asking for comment on this assumption.
    One challenge facing us is identifying HHG brokers that should be 
registered with us, but are not. Another challenge is estimating the 
benefits to consumers from potential alternatives we might consider in 
response to this ANPRM. Although our Offices of Communications and 
Household Goods Enforcement believe a majority of our consumer 
complaints are related to HHG brokers, our HHG complaint database has 
very limited information on the exact nature of complaints received. 
Thus, it is difficult to determine what percentage of complaints, 
including complaints that are filed with our state divisions, could be 
averted by potential actions we may initiate.
    We request comments from the public on how potential alternatives 
may impact HHG brokers. This information would represent a major input 
to estimating the costs of any potential alternatives. We also 
specifically request comments on the benefits of potential alternatives 
to prevent harm to those consumers who might otherwise suffer negative 
economic or other consequences, absent such alternative solutions. In 
addition, we ask entities and associations of small entities to 
identify their gross revenues.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive 
Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). As we 
have said earlier in this ANPRM, we and our predecessor agencies have 
regulated the brokering, arranging, and forwarding of property in 
interstate or foreign commerce, including the transportation of HHG, 
since 1949. We believe these issues are national in scope. Congress 
transferred the property broker regulations to DOT in the ICCTA. Title 
49 U.S.C. 13904 confers authority on the Secretary of Transportation to 
register brokers and ``provide for the protection of shippers by motor 
vehicle.'' The Secretary subsequently delegated this

[[Page 76670]]

authority to FMCSA under 49 CFR 1.73(a)(5).
    The primary federalism issue is whether 49 U.S.C. 13904 preempts 
State and local attempts to regulate the business practices of 
interstate HHG brokers. Although 49 U.S.C. 14501(b)(1) prohibits a 
State, a political subdivision of a State, an intrastate agency, or 
other political agency of two or more States to enact or enforce any 
law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force 
and effect of law relating to intrastate rates, routes, or services of 
a broker, there is no express preemption regarding interstate broker 
operations.
    The Carmack Amendment (June 29, 1906, ch. 3591, Sec.  7 (pars. 11, 
12), 34 Stat. 595) to the Interstate Commerce Act (Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 
104, 24 Stat. 379) as amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. 14706, imposes a 
uniform system of motor carrier and freight forwarder liability for 
interstate and foreign shipments of property. Congress designed Carmack 
to eliminate uncertainty resulting from potentially conflicting State 
laws. Federal and State courts have consistently held that Carmack 
preempts a broad range of State consumer protection laws potentially 
applicable to HHG motor carriers and freight forwarders engaged in 
interstate or foreign commerce.
    The Carmack Amendment by its terms applies to ``carriers,'' ``motor 
carriers,'' and ``freight forwarders.'' Therefore, we do not believe 
Carmack would apply to typical broker operations, especially since 
brokers seldom take possession of property. We invite comment regarding 
whether potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM 
would preempt many, if not all, State regulations that directly, or 
indirectly regulate the brokerage of transportation of HHG subject to 
Federal jurisdiction.

Consultations With State and Local Officials

    We specifically request comment from State and local officials on 
any federalism issues. In particular, we request comment on whether we 
should seek legislative changes to allow States to assist FMCSA in 
enforcing regulations applicable to HHG brokers engaged in interstate 
or foreign commerce.
    Because AMSA has reported the most problems with brokers allegedly 
doing business in Florida, we would specifically like to hear from 
State officials in Florida, including the Florida Attorney General.

Unfunded Mandates Reform ACT of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 
1532) requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory 
actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. 
Any agency promulgating a final rule likely to result in a Federal 
mandate requiring expenditures by a State, local, or tribal government, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted for 
inflation) in any one year, must prepare a written statement 
incorporating various assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are 
delineated in the Act. We are not yet in a position to analyze fully 
any potential actions we may initiate and that may meet the 
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. We seek specific 
comments whether such impacts are likely for any regulatory or non-
regulatory alternatives we might consider in our deliberations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a 
Federal agency must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of 
information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations.
    As referenced above, part 371 requires a broker to keep a record of 
each transaction and to retain the records for a period of three years. 
Each party to a brokered transaction has the right to review the record 
of the transaction applicable to them. Brokers may keep master lists of 
consignors and the address and registration number of the motor 
carrier, rather than repeating this information for each transaction. 
Under section 371.3, each transaction record must show:
    (1) The name and address of the consignor;
    (2) The name, address, and registration number of the originating 
motor carrier;
    (3) The bill of lading or freight bill number;
    (4) The amount of compensation received by the broker for the 
brokerage service performed and the name of the payer;
    (5) A description of any non-brokerage service performed in 
connection with each shipment or other activity, the amount of 
compensation received for the service, and the name of the payer; and
    (6) The amount of any freight charges collected by the broker and 
the date of payment to the motor carrier.
    Each broker who engages in any other business, must maintain 
accounts so that the revenues and expenses relating to the brokerage 
portion of its business are segregated from its other activities. 
Expenses that are common must be allocated on an equitable basis; 
however, the broker must be prepared to explain the basis for the 
allocation.
    The AMSA suggested alternative would also require an HHG broker to:
    (1) Identify itself, the capacity in which it holds itself out, and 
reveal its location and telephone number;
    (2) Use only FMCSA-registered motor carriers for HHG movements 
placed in interstate or foreign commerce;
    (3) Provide to shippers the pamphlet ``Your Rights and 
Responsibilities When You Move;'
    (4) Explain motor carrier liability for loss and damage;
    (5) Advise of the availability of arbitration;
    (6) Require full written disclosure in advance regarding shipment 
charges;
    (7) Require full disclosure of the terms governing deposits and 
forfeiture requirements before payment of a deposit;
    (8) Advise the consumer about the existence of its surety bond or 
trust fund agreement;
    (9) Direct the consumer to appropriate rights and responsibility 
assistance; and
    (10) Report violations of regulations by HHG motor carriers to us.
    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential action 
we may initiate that may fall within the scope of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. If we initiate a potential regulatory alternative in the 
future incorporating these or other relevant provisions, we would seek 
approval of any collection of information requirements to generate, 
maintain, retain, disclose, and provide information to, or for, the 
agency under 49 CFR part 371. The information collected would assist 
individual HHG consumers and HHG motor carriers in their commercial 
dealings with HHG brokers. The collection of information would be used 
by prospective HHG consumers to make informed decisions about contracts 
and services to be ordered, executed, and settled within the HHG motor 
carrier industry.
    When the ICCTA transferred the current regulations to DOT, OMB 
assigned no control number to cover the information collection transfer 
of the six items in section 371.3. We seek specific comments from 
property brokers and HHG brokers concerning what information collection 
burdens they currently experience to comply with part 371, and what 
burdens they would anticipate under AMSA's suggested alternative and 
other alternatives we

[[Page 76671]]

might consider for a possible subsequent regulatory action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 
(issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680). We believe potential actions we 
may initiate in response to this ANPRM may be categorically excluded 
(CE) from further environmental documentation under Appendix 2 6.k. of 
Order 5610.1, which contains a categorical exclusion for regulations 
for all brokers of transportation by motor vehicle. In addition, we 
believe potential actions we may initiate would not involve 
extraordinary circumstances that would affect the quality of the 
environment.
    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA) section 
176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations 
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. We believe 
potential actions we may initiate would be exempt from the CAA's 
general conformity requirement since they would involve policy 
development and civil enforcement activities, such as investigations, 
inspections, examinations, and the training of law enforcement 
personnel. See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2). We anticipate potential actions we 
may initiate in response to this ANPRM would not result in any 
emissions increase or result in emissions that are above the general 
conformity rule's de minimis emission threshold levels because the AMSA 
suggested alternative or other potential actions would merely establish 
standards for arrangements between HHG brokers and shippers.
    We seek comment on the effect on the environment of the AMSA 
suggested alternative and other potential action alternatives.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
that may constitute a taking of private property or otherwise have 
taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. We 
seek comment on whether potential actions we may initiate in response 
to this ANPRM would constitute a taking of private property or 
otherwise have implications under Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
that may require intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities under Executive Order 12372, as amended. We seek comment on 
whether potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM 
would require any intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs 
and activities under Executive Order 12372, as amended.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
that may affect energy supply, distribution, or use under Executive 
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We seek comment on whether 
potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM would 
affect any regulatory or non-regulatory alternatives that may 
significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    We are not yet in a position to analyze fully any potential actions 
that may meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. We seek comment on whether 
potential actions we may initiate in response to this ANPRM would meet 
the standards in Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 371

    Brokers, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Questions

    We would like the public to answer the following questions:

General

    1. Is the statement/description of the problem accurate? Please 
explain.
    2. What non-regulatory actions could address the problem?
    3. What State or local actions could address the problem without 
our Federal regulatory action?
    4. Is the problem of shipper abuse by HHG brokers serious enough to 
expedite the rulemaking process in some way? Please explain.
    5. Are there other consumer protection models being utilized by 
other Federal or State agencies that we should study and/or emulate? 
Please explain.

Statistics for Cost-Benefit Analysis

    6(a). How many entities in the United States sell, offer for sale, 
negotiate for, or hold themselves out by solicitation, advertisement, 
or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, HHG 
transportation by motor carrier in interstate or foreign commerce for 
compensation, and are not an HHG motor carrier or HHG freight 
forwarder?
    6(b). How many entities outside the United States sell, offer for 
sale, negotiate for, or hold themselves out by solicitation, 
advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for, 
HHG transportation by motor carrier in the United States in interstate 
or foreign commerce for compensation, and are not an HHG motor carrier 
or HHG freight forwarder?
    7. If you are a property broker of HHG, under what North American 
Industry Classification System code at http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm would you classify yourself?
    8. If you are a property broker of HHG, what was your gross revenue 
for your most recent fiscal year?

Information Collection Burdens

    9. If you are a property broker, what are your current time and 
dollar burdens to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, and provide 
information to us or the public:
    9(a). For each record of every transaction?
    9(b). For each record for a period of three years?
    9(c). To review each record of each transaction applicable to the 
parties of each transaction?
    9(d). About your HHG broker operation advertising?
    9(e). About how you maintain your accounts so that the public may 
see the revenues and expenses relating to the brokerage portion of your 
business are segregated from your other activities?
    9(f). For allocating your expenses that are common on an equitable 
basis?
    10. If you are a property broker, do you keep master lists of 
consignors and the address and registration number of the motor 
carriers, rather than repeating this information for each transaction?
    11. If you are a property broker of HHG, what do you estimate your 
anticipated time and dollar burdens would be to generate, maintain, 
retain, and provide:
    11(a). Full written disclosure in advance regarding your shipment 
charges?
    11(b). Full disclosure of your terms governing deposits and 
forfeiture requirements before you demand payment of a deposit?

[[Page 76672]]

    11(c). Information advising consumers about existence of your 
surety bond or trust fund agreement?
    11(d). Information directly to consumers about their appropriate 
rights and responsibility assistance as requested by AMSA?
    11(e). Information to us about violations of our regulations by HHG 
motor carriers, as requested by AMSA?
    11(f). Information to us and the public to ensure you, your 
employees, and your agents do not provide misleading or deceptive 
information?

Federalism Implications

    12. Does 49 U.S.C. 13904 preempt States from enforcing consumer 
protection laws potentially applicable to property brokers?
    13. Have current interpretations of the Carmack Amendment 
frustrated the ability of States to use their consumer protection 
statutes in cases of HHG broker abuse? If so, will the AMSA suggested 
alternative or would a different alternative be helpful to your State? 
Is something else needed?
    14. What role, if any, may State or local enforcement agencies and 
attorneys general provide in helping enforce potential action 
alternatives?
    15. Do you believe only FMCSA should enforce regulations or other 
alternatives on HHG brokers?
    16. Do you believe States and local government agencies should be 
involved in enforcing regulations or other alternatives on HHG brokers?

HHG Carrier Related Pamphlet

    17. Should HHG brokers be required to provide consumers with the 49 
CFR part 375, Appendix A, ``Your Rights and Responsibilities When You 
Move'' pamphlet?

New Regulations Specifically for HHG Brokers

    18. Should HHG brokers be required to provide refunds of consumer 
deposits if the consumer cancels the shipment? Why or why not?
    19. Should HHG brokers advise the consumer about the existence of 
the HHG broker's surety bond or trust fund? Please explain.
    20. Should HHG brokers be required to report to us illegal 
operations of HHG motor carriers? Please explain.

Economic Implications

    21. What are the economic issues and impacts of the AMSA suggested 
alternative and other alternatives that we should evaluate?

Regulatory Flexibility/Small Business Issues

    22. What are the small entity economic issues and impacts of the 
AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives that we should 
evaluate?

Unfunded Mandates

    23. What are the potential unfunded mandates that may be involved 
in the AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives?

Environmental Issues

    24. What are the potential effects of the AMSA suggested 
alternative and other alternatives on the quality of the environment 
that we should consider in any potential NEPA analysis?

Private Property Taking Issues

    25. Would the AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives 
constitute a taking of private property or otherwise have taking 
implications under Executive Order 12630? Please explain.

Intergovernmental Consultation Issues

    26. Would the AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives 
require any intergovernmental consultations on other Federal programs 
and activities under Executive Order 12372? Please explain.

Energy Supply Issues

    27. Would the AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives 
affect any actions that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, or use under Executive Order 13211? Please explain.

Financial Responsibility Issues

    28. Should HHG brokers be subject to more stringent surety bond/
trust fund requirements than apply to brokers of general freight? If 
so:
    28(a). Should the surety bond/trust fund requirements be increased?
    28(b). What should the surety bond/trust fund requirement amount be 
to deter sufficiently non-compliant behavior and protect the public? 
What would be the impact of this requirement on small businesses?

Contract Issues

    29. Should HHG brokers be required to enter into specific 
contractual agreements for all motor carriers for which they provide 
estimates? Please explain.
    30. The current Sec.  375.409 places the responsibility of 
complying with the estimating requirements on the HHG motor carrier. 
Should the same responsibility be placed upon the HHG broker? Please 
explain.

HHG Motor Carrier Issues

    31. How will the AMSA suggested alternative and other alternatives 
affect HHG motor carriers?
    31(a). What additional paperwork burdens could reasonably be seen?
    31(b). How important are HHG brokers and freight forwarders to HHG 
motor carrier business operations?

HHG Freight Forwarder Issues

    32(a). Are there any HHG freight forwarder problems similar to the 
problems reported by AMSA concerning HHG brokers?
    32(b). Should a potential action FMCSA may initiate consider 
regulatory requirements for HHG freight forwarder operations?

HHG Motor Carrier Business Protection Issues

    33. How and to what extent should we protect HHG motor carriers 
from unscrupulous HHG broker activities?

Enforcement Strategies

    34. Given the current e-business environment, what enforcement 
strategies should we use to protect HHG shippers from unscrupulous HHG 
broker activities?
    35. What should be the range of appropriate sanctions or penalties 
for violating potential actions FMCSA may initiate?
    36. Paragraph (d) of 49 U.S.C. 14901 requires a motor carrier or 
freight forwarder of household goods, or their receiver or trustee, 
that does not comply with any regulation relating to the protection of 
individual shippers, to be liable for a minimum penalty of $1,100 per 
violation, as adjusted for inflation. Should we seek Congressional 
action to extend applicability of 49 U.S.C. 14901(d) to HHG brokers? 
Why or why not?

    Issued on: December 16, 2004.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-27933 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P