Attachment C, Petition for Rulemaking, American Moving and Storage Association

uw

-A,

opFIuEf3

CROSS & AUCHINCXJOSS
S

m 570

i

1707 L STREET,
N.W.
WA.S€~IK?C+TO~P.
D. C. 20036

(202) 785-3700

FA--:
E--

DOH"

E.(3noss l l s e 9 - l B S B l

(202) 659-4934

RCAIuSW@S-r%'

March 6,2003

Kirk Van Tine, Esq.
General Counsel
Department of Transportation
400 7Ih Street, SW
Room 10428
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Van Tine:
On behalf of the American Moving & Storage Association, enclosed are the
original and one copy of a petition requesting institution of a rulemaking proceeding to
formulate regulations affecting brokers of household goods transportation services by
motor camer. Also enclosed, for your information, is a copy of a letter from the
President of the Association to Secretary Mineta which explains the need for the
proposed proceeding.
Please have the enclosed additional copy of the petition stamped for retum by our
messenger.
A

Sincerely,

Storage Association, Inc.

cc:

Mr. Joseph M. Harrison
President
American Moving & Storage Association

:

,

La

.

AMSA

Amerhn Moving and Storage Association
7611 Duke Street, Alemdria, Virginia 22314-3482
Tel(703) 683-7470 Fax (703) 683:7527
Web: www.promovecorg
www.moving.org

JOE HARRISON
President

March

6
1

2003

The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary
Untied States Department of Transportation
400 7* Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary Mineta:

I am submitting herewith on behalf of the 3,500 members of the American Moving 8,
Storage Association (AMSA) a Petition for Rulemaking seeking the promulgation of regulations
goveming brokers of household goods transportation services by motor carrier.
Your Department, and particularly the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), is well aware of the large number of complaints it has received from consumers
conceming rogue (scam) movers and brokers. Certainly this is confirmed by the recent joint
DOJ/DOT criminal enforcement action taken against over 40 rogue movers who have been
"ripping off consumers for the past several years. I heartily congratulate you and your
Department on this timely and much needed enforcement action.
Some of the movers named in the recent indictments also operate lntemet websites to
broker consumers' shipments. Increased use of the lntemet by consumers has seriously
exacerbated the problems rogue movers and brokers are creating. The ever increasing
number of 'moving-related" websites hosted by brokers, with or without FMCSA permits, and
their questionable practices, including the use of rogue movers, has resulted in countless
complaints from consumers who use the Internet to locate movers.
Congressman Thomas Petri introduced a bill, Securing Consumers Assurance in
Moving Act of 2003 (SCAM), on March 4, 2003. While certain aspects of his bill are troubling,
the proposal does include a requirement that movers and household goods brokers display
their FMCSA registration number, the Your Rights and Responsibilities booklet, a list of
movers the broker will be using and penalties if the broker gives an estimate of the cost of a
move to a consumer before entering into an agreement with a carrier (mover). Rest assured
AMSA supports all efforts to educate consumers and these requirements and many other
important broker-related requirements are included in the AMSA Petition for Rulemaking.

As early as August 2001, AMSA recognized the problems created for consumers by
Internet brokers of household goods transportation services. At that point, AMSA filed a
Petition for Declaratory Order requesting DOT (FMCSA) require that brokers of these services
include certain consumer related information on their websites. Unfortunately, it took FMCSA
thirteen months to deny that Petition on the grounds that requiring notice of DOT'SYour Rights
and Responsibilitiesbooklet (OCE-100) on broker lntemet sites would create confusion among
consumer shippers. AMSA was obviously disappointed by that decision and perplexed by the
r denial. Since 2001, even more broker websites have been established
umers have been 'ripped o
=use of the absence of regulations and

-2AMSA, Congress, and consumer groups all agree that consumer education is an
important component of the overall effort to steer consumers away from utilizing rogue movers
and brokers. Based on the level of complaints generated by lntemet broker sites and
Congress’ interest in this same subject, we respectfully request that DOT expeditiously
address the AMSA
ition. An interminable period oftime should not elapse before institution
ofa rulemaking proceeding. AMSA firmly believes that regulatory oversight is a necessary
element in the fight against disreputable movers and brokers. Your prompt consideration of
this request would be appreciated.
I

Sincerely,

RAGE ASSOCIATION
I
J

cc:

Rep. Thomas Petri
Rep. John Mica
Rep. Denis Rehberg
Rep.William Lipinski
Rep. Richard Baker
Rep. Eddie Bemice Johnson
Rep. Henry Brown
Rep. Steven LaTourette
Rep. Michael Honda
Hon. Annette Sandberg

. .

’

..

BEFORE THE
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DOCKETNo.

PETITIONFORRULEMAKING

JOSEPH M. HARRISON
President
AMERICAN MOVING AND
STORAGEASSOCIATION, INC.
1611 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

THOMAS M.AUCHINCLOSS, JR
BRIAN L. TROIANO
1707 L Street, N W
i

Washington, DC 20036
202-785-3700
Counsel for American Moving and
Storage Assodaiton, Inc.

OF COUNSEL
REA, CROSS & AUCHINCLOSS
1707 L Street, NW
Suite 570
Wasbington, DC 20036
DATED AND FILED: MARCH 6,2003

American Movlng and
Storage Assoclatlon

i-

-

6

.

u. s.

-

..

.. .

.

_____

. . .. __&.....__

.. . . . . .

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DOCKETNo.

PETITION
FORRULEMAKING
I

JOSEPH M. HARRISON
President

AMERICAN MOVING AND
STORAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.
1611 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

A

.

THOMAS M. AUCHINCLOSS, JR
BRIAN L. TROIANO
1707 L Street, N W
Washington, DC 20036
202-785-3700
*
Counsel for American Moving and
Storage Associaiton, Inc.

OF COUNSEL
REA, CROSS & AUCHINCLOSS
1707 L Street, NW
Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036

-

6,2003
DATED AND FILED: MARCH

I

AMSA

-*-..

.

American Moving and
Storage Association

c
t
P

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

t
I
t

DOCKET NO.

-

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

t
The American Moving and Storage Association, Inc. (AMSA) hereby petitions
the Department of Transportation (DOT)to in

e. The DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is authorized
to

commence this proceeding pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.5

553, and to adopt regulations applicable to brokers for the protection of consumer

shippers pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination
Act of 1995,49 U.S.C.5 13904(c).
In support thereof, AMSA respectfully states as follows:

I.

IDENTITY OF PETITIONER
AMSA is the national trade association of the moving and storage industry. It has
approximately 3,500 members worldwide and represents the entire spectrum of the
-._

domestic moving
and storage industry. The membership includes national van lines,
* _.-. .
independent regulated carriers, agents of van lines, most of whom are also regulated

carriers in their own right, and international movers. AMSA members operate in every
city, town, borough and hamlet in the United States performing interstate, intrastate and
local moving and storage services as required by consumers, industry and government.
AMSA members that are engaged in the interstate transportation of household
goods operate by virtue of authority issued by the former Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC or Commission) or the former Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) or the FMCSA and conform their operations to the licensing requirements of
the Interstate Commerce Act and related FMCSA regulations, and the Consumer
Protection Regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 375. A number of AMSA members are
also licensed as household goods brokers or are affiliated with licensed brokers.

11.
THE NEED FOR REGULATIONS
For better or worse, the Internet has brought significant changes to the moving
industry. It has allowed movers and brokers to hold out their services to a much broader
’

:

-

base of customers than in the past. With the click of a mouse, a consumer located
anywhere in the country can obtain any number of comparative quotes for a move, select
a mover, and enter into a contract, all within the confines of his or her home.
Undoubtedly due to the vast market of potential customers, coupled with the limited cost
of transacting business over the Internet, many of these companies conduct business only

through the Internet. A recent search of the Internet revealed no fewer than several
hundred websites offering to perform, arrange or manage moving services in one form or
another on behalf of consumers. Such sites also provide references to transportation
w

2

i

companies, give online quotations, book shipments, as well as perform variations of all of
these services.
While access to these services may provide certain benefits to the consuming
public, the proliferation of Internet brokers has also resulted in an explosion of
complaints fielded by AMSA concerning the abusive and deceptive practices of
unscrupulous companies that prey upon the moving public. Although FMCSA is charged
with policing these companies, AMSA, as the national trade association of the moving
and storage industry, routinely receives complaints apparently because consumers are
unable to get relief elsewhere. The mounting number of Internet related complaints
received by AMSA makes it obvious that consumers are not well informed on the moving
process. They are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of no information,
misinformation, or too little information when they deal with brokers, licensed and
unlicensed.
As explained in this petition, regulations requiring the posting on Internet sites of
important notices to consumers about their rights when arranging a move and at the time
of shipment delivery will significantly improve the public’s understanding of the
legitimate moving process. It is a fact that many Internet brokers are attracting
,

consumers with well-designed websites that prominently display the purported attributes
of their service. With the proposed regulations in place, it will become a relatively
simple task to determine whether an Internet broker is complying with the notice and
other consumer oriented requirements imposed by the proposed regulations. It is only
necessary to click on a website and review its contents to determine compliance. Brokers
that fail to comply with the FMCSA regulations will be readily detected. Non

3

compliance also presents the risk of websites losing their prominent accessibility on the
Internet. Several Internet Service Providers have responded to complaints about websites
containing unlawful or fraudulent advice by removing those sites from their systems.
From the standpoint of FMCSA, it is important to note that no significant expenditure of
its investigative or enforcement resources will 6e required to assist consumers by
imposing these requirements.
Obviously, AMSA and its members have a substantial interest in protecting and
enhancing the industry's reputation. To this end, AMSA maintains and administers its
Certified Mover Program under which it investigates complaints against its members and,
if necessary, imposes various degrees of sanctions, including expulsion from the

Association. However, the complaints AMSA receives are, by and large, directed against

'

nonmembers over which it is powerless to act. Nonetheless, the questionable practices
of many Internet brokers, as evidenced by the constant stream of consumer complaints

received by AMSA, prompted its Board of Directors to amend the Association's by-laws
to deny membership to brokers of household goods. The Board concluded that AMSA
should not be aligned with operators that; as a group, employ deceptive practices to
attract business, nor should they allow the AMSA logo to be displayed on brokers'
websites giving them a measure of credibility they do not deserve.

I

r

In the past 2 years, AMSA has requested FMCSA to address certain related problems involving
brokers. By petition filed August 25, 2000, it requested FMCSA to declare that the transportation of used
household goods in'containers by general freia3'carriers is subject to the Consumer Protection regulations,
49 C.F.R. Part 375. It declined to do so. On August 30,2001, AMSA filed a petition requesting FMCSA
to deciare that household goods brokers are required to issue to customers a copy of the booklet OCE-100,
"Yours Rights And Responsibilities When You Move." It declined to do so.

Motor carriers licensed by FMCSA to transport household goods are, of course,

,

subject to the Consumer Protection regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 375.' Adoption of
similar consumer protection rules applicable to brokers of household goods transportation
services is essential to reign in the practices of unscrupulous broker operators that
typically stand in the same shoes as motor camers when dealing with individual
householders. They should therefore be held to the same standards as the carrier
furnishing the service.

t
rot

1

practices. They are, in fact, woefully ineffective,
Brokers who hold themselves out on the Internet and engage in deceptive
practices present a vexing problem for consumers. Unlike movers who must at some
point make a physical appearance to the consumer, Internet brokers can complete an
entire transaction, including the collection of money, without meeting or speaking with
the Customer or furnishing a phone number or address. When a problem arises, they can

..

and many do, just disappear. Websites are removed from the Internet and others take
their place.
A significant number of the complaints received by AMSA involve the same
Internet companies, many of which are based in Florida. The fact that they are involved

in moves having no connection to Florida as an origin or destination further demonstrates
the impact of the Internet on these arrangements and how it is being used to entrap
unsuspecting consumers. It is not at all unusual for AMSA to receive a complaint from a
consumer who dealt with a Florida-based Internet broker who arranged a move from one
. 2

Those regulations are presently under review for amendment. See Docket No. FMCSA 97-2979,
Transportation of Household Goods, Consumer Protection Regulations, 65 Fed. Reg. 27 126 (1 998).
Nevertheless, the existing regulations remain in effect while that proceeding is pending.

L

far removed state to another. Once these brokers snare the consumer by requiring the
payment of a deposit of several hundred dollars or more, they fade from the picture
leaving the consumer to deal with, in most cases, an unlicensed mover the broker
contacted to handle the move. It has become evident that a significant network of
unscrupulous brokers and movers 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.
,Several examples of actual complaints received by AMSA should serve to
illustrate the nature of the problems being experienced by the moving public.
Information available to AMSA indicates that many of the complaints it received were
also lodged with FMCSA. For purposes of this petition names have been deleted, but
AMSA has records of these complaints which can and will be supplied if requested.
CaseNo. 1
Florida-based broker arranged a move from Colorado to Michigan. Estimated
cost $2,200. Amount demanded by mover $5,400. At last report the customer's goods
were being held by the mover.
Case No. 2
Broker estimated moving cost to be $2,200 and received a deposit of $1,100.
Mover demanded additional $2,900 at delivery.
Case No. 3
Florida-based broker quoted a charge of $1,570. Mover demanded payment of

$3,500.
.. .

6

2

i

-

r

.

1
I

Case NO. 4
I

Florida-based broker arranged a move from Georgia to Washington. A rental
truck arrived for the pickup, moved the goods five miles to a storage facility and

I

demanded twice the amount originally quoted (amount not specified). Customer paid
$2,900 cash to have the goods released from storage.

I
I
I

Case No. 5
Florida-based broker arranged a move from Colorado to West Virginia at a quoted
charge of S 1,550 and a deposit of $775. A rental truck arrived for the move and the
driver advised that the move would cost $5,100. Customer cancelled the move and the

I

broker has rehsed to refund the $775 deposit.

I

Case No. 6
Florida-based broker arranged a move from North Carolina to Pennsylvania and

I

received a deposit of $1,740. Move cancelled by customer because of personal reasons.
Although the broker initially represented that the deposit would be refunded if the move

-

was not performed, it has refused to return the deposit.
Case No. 7
Florida-based broker arranged a move from Texas to Washington. Total moving
charges (not specified) were charged on customer’s credit card. At the time the customer
complained to AMSA the goods were not delivered and neither the broker nor the mover
would return the customer’s calls.
CaseNo. 8
A customer arranged a move through a Florida-based broker and paid a deposit of

_..---

$1,200. Forty five (45) days before the scheduled pickup the customer cancelled the

7

move. The broker has refused to refund the deposit notwithstanding its representation the
move could be cancelled up to 7 days before the scheduled pickup and a rehnd would be
made.
Case No. 9

An Internet broker arranged a move (points not specified), demanded a deposit by
credit card and obtained a contract from the customer. The mover told the customer the
move would cost twice the estimated charge. Two weeks after pickup, the customer
could not locate the goods, or when they would be delivered, and received different
responses fiom the broker and the mover on the delivery date and the price.
Case No. 10
Florida-based broker arranged a move from New Jersey to Oregon at an estimated
charge of $1,280 and an estimated transit time of 2 weeks. The delivery was made 2- 1/2
months later. The cost increased to $2,720, which the customer paid notwithstanding the
presence of an FMCSA field administrator who could not convince the unlicensed carrier
to release the goods for the estimated charge.

The above cases are merely typical examples of the tip of an increasingly large
iceberg of complaints AMSA continues to receive. They are also illustrative of recent
tabloid expose segments on rogue movers and brokers appearing on programs such as
NBC’s Dateline.
Either for lack of resources, order of priorities, or otherwise, the existing broker
regulations are not being enforced and, in any event, are not designed to protect consumer
shippers. Indeed, even if they were being enforced, the existing regulations do not
directly address consumer protection. What is needed are explicit, narrowly tailored

8

regulations that cannot be circumvented or ignored. The regulations should be simple to
understand and mandatory SO that it can be readily determined whether or not a
requirement has been met. Regulations that require appropriate notices by brokers to
consumers and a paper trail permit prompt determinations of whether brokers are or are
not doing what is required.
111.
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED
There is no valid justification for subjecting motor carriers of household goods to
Consumer Protection regulations, but not offering the public the same degree of
protection when brokers' are involved in the transportation of household goods on behalf
of consumers. Congress envisioned the need for such oversight in directing the Secretary

that regulations applicable to brokers shall provide for the protection of shippers by
motor vehicle. 49 U.S.C.

9 13904(c).

The existing broker regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part

371 do not provide any realistic measure of protection for consumer shippers of
household goods.

AMSA proposes the appended regulations that would apply specifically to
f"

brokers of household goods in addition to the more generalized rules presently applicable
to all property brokers. The proposed regulations are easily understood, straightforward
and designed to address the types of complaints received by AMSA and FMCSA. They
are well within the Secretary's authority to protect shippers and are narrowly tailored to
apply only to brokers of household goods in their dealings with individual householders.
The primary concept underlying the proposed regulations is disclosure. Based

upon the many complaints that AMSA routinely receives, 'much of the present problem

9

stems from inadequate infomation, lack of explanation, and/or deliberate deception and
concealment. Because Internet transactions are typically covered by the cloak of
anonymity, consumers often do not know with whom they are dealing, in what capacity,
or how to communicate with an actual person representing the Internet broker. This
environment is undoubtedly fostered by the ladk of regulations requiring brokers to
furnish the same information that camers are required to give to consumers. By hiding
behind this regulatory void, brokers are able to engage in all sorts of deceptive practices
SO long,as they

meet the minimal requirements of the existing regulations. To comply,

one need only maintain its records and not misrepresent its broker status when holding
out its services. However, the regulations impose no affirmative duties on the broker to
ensure protection of the shipper.
The proposed regulations are designed to fill the existing regulatory gap. The
current regulations are passive whereas the proposed regulations would require brokers to
act affirmatively by making specified disclosures to consumers. Importantly, the
regulations would apply regardless of the medium through which services are held out
and therefore ensure that the Internet is not used as a device to avoid regulation.
The following summarizes the proposed regulations contained in the Attachment
hereto.
ProDosed Definitions in Present Section 37 1.2
The existing definitions would be amended to add paragraphs (e) and ( f ) defining
“household goods broker” and “individual shipper”. These definitions are designed to
mirror the definitions of “household goods” and “brokers” contained in the statute and
“shipper” in the Consumer Protection regulations applicable to motor carriers of

10

household goods. Paragraph (c) would be amended to explicitly include the
I

transportation of household goods within the definition of brokerage service.
proposed Section 37 1.14
A new subsection 14 would be added as a separate category of brokers, viz.,

household goods brokers.
Proposed paramaph (a)
This paragraph makes clear that household goods brokers are subject to both the
existing and the new regulations.
Proposed uaragrauh (bl
The broker would be required to identify itself, the capacity in which it holds
itselfout, and reveal its locations and a telephone number so that customers can
communicate with a person. This is designed to remove the cloak of anonymity.
Proposed paragrauh (cl
In an effort to eliminate or reduce the use of unauthorized carriers, the
reelations would require brokers to use only licensed motor carriers. This will help to
ensure that the carrier performing service is insured, offers arbitration, is a responsible
entity in the event of a dispute, and otherwise is held to the requirements of the Consumer
Protection regulations.
Prouosed uaragrauh (dl
At the initial point of contact by the householder, it is appropriate that the broker
provide information concerning the shipper's rights and responsibilities, explain camer
liability for loss or damage and the options available, and advise of the availability of
arbitration. Carriers are presently required to fhmish this information, but oftentimes it is

11

I

not provided. The overlapping requirement would serve to provide a safety net for

c

consumers to ensure that they receive this important information.
Proposed paragraphs (e), (f). (E) and Chl

I
C
I
I

A persistent source of disputes involves estimates of shipment charges. Some are

simply inaccurate, others are deliberately deceptive. This is often the case on Intemet
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. Disputes also arise
when the customer is not informed that the estimate was not binding and that the actual
weight of the shipment determines the charges, or that the estimate was binding but does

I
I

not cover unanticipated services at delivery. Often the customer is simply given an oral
quotation that is subsequently disavowed.
Many disputes can be resolved by requiring full written disclosure in advance of

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II

the move. If all of the factors that may vary the customer’s charges are disclosed at the
outset of the transaction, the customer should not claim surprise or bait and switch. On

-

the other hand, if the broker does not disclose that the actual charges may differ from the
quote and the reasons therefor, the carrier should not be authorized to collect a higher
amount.
Proposed Daramaph Cil
A frequent complaint raised by consumers concerns deposits required to secure

broker service. Presently, there is no prohibition against requiring a deposit. Inasmuch
as an Internet customer can disappear as readily as an unscrupulous broker, it may be
prudent to permit a deposit from a customer to secure the transportation service, By the
same token, if the request for service is cancelled prior to the move, the deposit should be

12

perhaps in varying amounts depending on how close or far in advance notice

t
It
t
It
t
t
1

r
I‘

I
I
I
I
I
I

of cancellation is given. In any case, the terms governing deposits and forfeitures should

be fully disclosed before a deposit can be demanded.
prouosed paragraph (11
Due to the nature of their business, unscrupulous brokers are able to “close shop”
and disappear, leaving shippers and carziers without recourse. The requirement that

and carriers in such an event. See ProperW Broker Security For Protection of Public,4
I . c . C . ~358
~ (1988). The proposed regulation would require disclosure of the existence
ofthe bond or trust agrkement SO that the consumer is aware that there is a potential
avenue for recourse.

7
Many consumers are unaware of their rights and the responsibilities of service
providers as prescribed by the federal government. The proposed regulation serves to
make consumers aware of where they can research these requirements.
Proposed Daragrauh (11
This regulation is designed to enhance enforcement of federal regulations. Some
consumers who are subjected to the unlawful practices of carriers that fail to comply with
or violate the existing household goods Consumer Protection regulations 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, it is
appropriate to require the broker to report violations to the FMCSA in an effort to
improve the system available to the consuming public.

13

on brokers to fairly protect the interests of their shipper customers and prohibited
misrepresentations and false promises. FOrmer 49 C.F.R. 9 1045.10 (1 978). Given the
practices described herein, and Congress’ directive to protect shippers, this paragraph
revives the former prohibition against misleading and deceptive practices.

CONCLUSION
iFor all of the foregoing reasons, AMSA respectfuIIy requests the Department of
Transportation to expeditiously publish notice in the Federal Register instituting a
NlemAing proceeding and soliciting public comment on the adoption of the regulations
proposed herein. Any delay in addressing the problems being encountered by consumers
as a result of the practices of brokers will surely exacerbate what has become a major

regulatory deficiency.
Respecthlly submitted,
e

AMERICAN MOVING & STORAGE

OF COUNSEL:

REA, CROSS & AUCHMCLOSS
1707 L Street, NW
Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036
Dated: March 6 , 2003

Washington, DC 20036
Counsel for American Moving &
Storage Association, Inc.

’I1

I

ATTACHMENT

PROPOSED REGULATIONS

Definitions
(1)

Add to definitions at 49 C.F.R. $371.2: __
(e) “Household goods broker” means a person who, for compensation, offers for

sale, or makes or holds himself out to make any contract, agreement, or arrangement to
provide, procure, fumish, or arrange the transportation by motor carrier of household
goods and/or any related service as defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(10)(A) and (19);

I

provided, however, that motor camers, their employees, or their bona fide agents are not
household goods brokers within the,meaning of this section when they arrange the
transpofiation of shipments which they are authorized to transport and which they have
accepted and legally bound themselves to transport.
(2)

Amend definition of brokerage service in paragraph (c) to include the

transportation of household goods by adding after the word “property” the phrase “or of
household goods”.

(3)

Add to definitions:

(0 “Individual shipper” means any person who is the consignor or consignee of a
household goods shipment, is identified as such in the bill of lading contract or other
similar contract, owns the goods being or to be transported, and pays for their
transportation.

t

c
b
b

c

Add the following section:

9 371.14.

Transportation of Household Goods.

(a) Applicability. In addition to the foregoing requirements, the following rules
also apply to household goods brokers in their dealings with and on behalf of individual
shippers.

1
~

(b) In any transaction subject to this part, each household goods broker shall
disclose its capacity as a broker, that it is licensed by the FMCSA, its registration

I

number,,the name in which its registration is issued, its current address and telephone

I

number.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

(c) In any transaction subject to this part, no household goods broker shall
procure, arrange, furnish, or refer the services of a motor camer that is not authorized by
the FMCSA to provide or participate in the transportation of household goods at or
between the places where service will be performed. The broker shall disclose the name
and FMCSA registration number of each camer participating in the shipment or referred
to the shipper.
(d) Prior to the execution of any agreement by an individual shipper, each
household goods broker shall furnish to such shipper the following information either in
written form or electronic form that can be reproduced in printed form:

(1) the contents of Publication OCE-100, Yours Riphts And
ResDonsibilities When You Move;
(2) an explanation of any carrier limitations of liability for loss
or damage that may or will govern the shipment; and
(3) an explanation of the availability of arbitration to resolve certain
disputes with respect to shipment loss or damage.

2

(e) Every estimate or statement of charges submitted to an individual shipper
be in writing, shall separately itemize the charges for linehaul transportation,

P

acking, unpacking, valuation and storage, and shalI confirm that a FMCSA registered

motor carrier has agreed to provide the services required by the shipper for the estimated

amount. The broker shall identify the FMCSA registered motor carrier. If a commission
is paid by an individual shipper or by a carrier to the broker, the commission shall also be

stated separately. The estimate or statement of charges may be furnished in an electronic

form that can be reproduced in a printed form.
(f) Any estimate of charges that is given to an individual shipper without a

physical survey of the goods shall recite that no survey has been performed and shall only
be given following an express waiver by the shipper of a physical survey.
(g) If an estimate of charges is provided to an individual shipper that is nonbinding, the household goods broker shall advise the shipper that the carrier’s actual
charges may be higher than the estimate based upon the actual weight of the shipment,
but that the carrier may not demand payment in excess of 110 percent of the estimated
charges at delivery. The broker shall explain to the shipper the terms governing the
extension of credit and that the shipper remains liable for the payment of all carrier
charges.
(h) If a guaranteed binding estimate of shipment charges is provided to an
individual shipper, the household goods broker shall specify in writing the services to be
performed by the camer and that the charges are binding on the carrier and the shipper.
(i) Any household goods broker who requires payment of a deposit or any other
sum of money in advance of performance of the transportation service shall provide a

3

.c

written statement identifying the pW(S>to whom such monies are distributed and the

c

circumstances in which any such payments may be forfeited in whole or in part. The

request for service is cancelled. Refids shall be issued promptly and in no case later
than 30 days from the date the shipper gives appropriate notice of cancellation.

6)

Every household goods broker &all disclose to shippers and camers the

existence of its surety bond or trust agreement required by law.
fk) Every household goods broker shall identify and disclose to individual
shippers the regulations in this part.
(I) If a dispute arises between a shipper and a camer procured or referred by a
household goods broker under this Part as a result of the carrier's violation of the
regulations contained in Part 375 of this Title, the broker shall give notice of such
violation to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

(m) Every household goods broker shall fairly protect the interests of any
individual shipper employing its service and shall assist such shippers in resolving
disputes with the motor carrier providing the transportation service. A broker shall not
misrepresent, make false promises, or engage in unfair or deceptive practices at any stage
of a transaction with a shipper or carrier.

4