FMCSA to pursue additional changes to the DataQs system

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is set to publish a notice in the Federal Register on July 1, 2025, outlining proposed revisions to the DataQs system, which it originally proposed back in September of 2024 but is now refining based on public comments received.

This proposal aims to improve the impartiality, timeliness, transparency, and overall fairness of the Request for Data Review (RDR) process, addressing long-standing concerns from motor carriers, drivers, and industry stakeholders. The changes are designed to ensure accurate and complete safety data, which is critical for FMCSA’s mission to enhance road safety and prevent large truck and motorcoach crashes.

Background of the DataQs System

The DataQs system is an online platform that allows motor carriers, commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, and other stakeholders to review and request corrections to federal and state crash and inspection data stored by FMCSA. This data, which includes crash reports, inspection records, and violations, is critical for maintaining accurate safety records that influence a carrier’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores. Errors or incomplete data can negatively impact a carrier’s reputation, insurance rates, and ability to operate, making the DataQs system a vital tool for ensuring data integrity.

On September 14, 2023, FMCSA proposed a federal appeals process for RDRs submitted through DataQs. That proposal included a 60-day comment period, which closed on November 13, 2023. The initial plan focused on creating a federal-level review for appeals related to regulatory and policy interpretations. However, feedback from stakeholders revealed broader concerns about the impartiality, consistency, and timeliness of the RDR process, particularly at the state level. In response, FMCSA has shifted its approach, tying in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant requirements to address these issues comprehensively with the states.

Summary of Public Comments

FMCSA received 54 docket comments to its earlier DataQs proposal, with 42 specifically addressing the proposed changes. Commenters included motor carriers, drivers, owner-operators, industry associations (e.g., American Trucking Associations, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association), safety consultants, and enforcement community members. The feedback was largely supportive of a federal appeals process but highlighted several areas for improvement, categorized into three main themes: impartiality, process enhancements, and timeliness.

Impartiality of the RDR Process

Thirty commenters emphasized the need for greater impartiality in the RDR process. A significant concern was that RDRs are often reviewed by the same officer, inspector, or agency that issued the violation, creating a perceived or actual conflict of interest. For example, the National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) noted instances where inspectors refused corrections despite evidence of errors. The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) and Trucker Nation recommended independent third-party adjudication to eliminate bias, with the issuing officer serving only as an information source.

Six commenters, including the American Bus Association (ABA) and OOIDA, urged that RDR reconsideration requests be handled by reviewers different from the initial reviewer. Four commenters suggested neutral panels for reconsideration, and eight highlighted inconsistencies in how states process RDRs, calling for a standardized nationwide approach. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and Greyhound supported standardization, with Trucker Nation proposing that adoption of a uniform process be tied to MCSAP grant funding.

Suggestions for the RDR Process

Ten commenters advocated expanding the scope of RDRs eligible for federal appeals, including crash, inspection, registration, and Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse violations. OOIDA proposed a broad scope covering all factual disputes, while Trucker Nation argued that all violation types should be appealable. Conversely, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) supported a limited scope to prevent overwhelming the system, suggesting a phased approach similar to the Crash Preventability Determination Program (CPDP).

Six commenters recommended review panels with industry representation, such as state enforcement agents, transportation officials, motor carriers, and drivers. Four commenters, including ATA and CVSA, requested public sharing of federal appeals decisions to enhance transparency. Additionally, four commenters suggested removing data related to active RDRs from public websites until resolved, though FMCSA rejected this idea to prevent frivolous submissions.

Timeliness of the RDR Process

Ten commenters expressed concerns about delays in the RDR process, which can affect data accuracy and safety program efficacy. ABA, Greyhound, and Halvor Lines emphasized the need for deadlines, with OOIDA proposing a 60-day resolution timeline for initial reviews and 30 days for reconsiderations and appeals. The Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA) suggested a one-week review period for states. ATA requested a clear outline of federal review timelines and strategies to address existing RDR backlogs.

FMCSA’s Response and Proposed Changes

After reviewing stakeholder feedback, FMCSA determined that a federal-level appeals process alone would not sufficiently address due process issues. Instead, the agency proposes revising MCSAP grant requirements to implement a state-centered, multi-level RDR review process with enhanced guardrails for impartiality, uniformity, and transparency. The proposal applies to state-owned data in DataQs and excludes federally-owned data, such as CPDP petitions or Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse requests.

Key Components of the Proposal

The proposed requirements aim to strengthen the RDR process by mandating a structured, multi-level review framework, clear timelines, and public transparency. Below are the key components:

General Requirements

• Points of Contact: States must designate contacts for crash and inspection RDRs.

• Review Periods: States must review inspection-related RDRs submitted within three years of the inspection and crash-related RDRs submitted within five years of the crash.

• Adjudicated Citations Policy: States must adhere to FMCSA’s policy on adjudicated citations.

• DataQs Implementation Plan: States must submit a plan detailing their RDR processes, updated annually through the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP). Approved plans will be publicly available on the DataQs website.

• Program Reviews: States must participate in FMCSA reviews of their DataQs processes.

Initial Review Process

• Timeline: States must open RDRs within seven days and respond within 21 days, either with a decision or a request for additional information.

• Additional Information: Requestors have 14 days to provide requested information, pausing the review clock. Non-responsive requests are closed as “Closed - No Requestor Response.”

• Decision-Making: The issuing officer cannot be the sole decision-maker for denials. Denials must include a detailed explanation, including the decision-maker’s name, evidence reviewed, reasons for the decision, and next steps.

RDR Reconsideration Review Process

• Eligibility: Applies to RDRs that received a full initial review, excluding those closed for lack of information.

• Timeline: States must open reconsideration requests within seven days and decide within 21 days.

• Reviewers: Must involve subject matter experts, excluding the issuing officer or their direct supervisor. Legal review is encouraged where applicable.

• Explanations: Denials must include detailed reasoning, similar to the initial review.

Final Review Process

• Eligibility: Applies to requests reviewed in both initial and reconsideration phases.

• Timeline: States must open final review requests within seven days and decide within 30 days.

• Burden of Proof: Requestors must provide factual or legal justification for corrections, with supporting documentation.

• Unsubstantiated Requests: May be returned for more information or closed without action.

Transparency and Accountability

FMCSA proposes making approved state DataQs Implementation Plans publicly available to promote transparency. Closed RDR responses must include explanatory reasons to help users understand decisions. However, RDR decisions will not be posted publicly on FMCSA websites, as the process remains state-centered. States will be held accountable through MCSAP grant compliance, with FMCSA notifying states of non-compliant plan updates.

Comments Sought by FMCSA

FMCSA is seeking public input on the proposal (due by September 1, 2025), particularly on the following questions:

1. What are the potential benefits and challenges of the proposed MCSAP revisions?

2. What challenges will states face in meeting the proposed timelines, and how should delays be handled?

3. How should states be held accountable for compliance with MCSAP requirements?

4. How should RDRs be handled when requestors fail to provide adequate information?

5. Should FMCSA define criteria for “valid reasons” for reconsideration, or should states have flexibility

   
   

   Comments can be filed online here.

Implications for the Trucking Industry

The proposed changes represent a significant step toward addressing long-standing concerns about the DataQs system. By mandating independent reviews, standardized processes, and clear timelines, FMCSA aims to ensure fairer outcomes for motor carriers and drivers. The multi-level review process, with subject matter expert panels, could reduce bias and improve decision quality, though we question whether this will actually pan out without FMCSA's direct involvement in the process. Publicly available implementation plans and detailed denial explanations will enhance transparency, helping stakeholders navigate the system more effectively.

However, challenges remain. States may face resource constraints in meeting tight timelines, particularly for complex RDRs requiring input from multiple agencies. The proposal’s reliance on state-level processes, rather than a centralized federal appeals system, may not fully address inconsistencies across jurisdictions. Industry stakeholders, particularly small carriers, may need support to meet the burden of proof requirements for RDRs.

About Trucksafe Consulting, LLC: Trucksafe Consulting is a full-service DOT regulatory compliance consulting and training service. We help carriers develop, implement, and improve their safety programs, through personalized services, industry-leading training, and a library of educational content. Trucksafe also hosts a livestream podcast on its various social media channels called Trucksafe LIVE! to discuss hot-button issues impacting highway transportation. Trucksafe is owned and operated by Brandon Wiseman and Jerad Childress, transportation attorneys who've assisted some of the nation’s leading fleets to develop and maintain cutting-edge safety programs. You can learn more about Trucksafe online at www.trucksafe.com and by following Trucksafe on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Or subscribe to Trucksafe's newsletter for the latest highway transportation news & analysis. Also, be sure to check out eRegs, the first app-based digital version of the federal safety regulations aimed at helping carriers and drivers better understand and comply with the regulations.