Notice2025-12059
Proposed Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 1, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
FMCSA addresses comments received in response to the Agency's Federal Register notice titled, "Appeal Process: Requests for Data Review." In addition, FMCSA proposes revisions to the DataQs requirements for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Grant funding in response to the comments and announces a 60-day comment period.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 1, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28860-28864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12059]
[[Page 28860]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0190]
Proposed Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; response to public comments and request for comments on
new proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA addresses comments received in response to the Agency's
Federal Register notice titled, ``Appeal Process: Requests for Data
Review.'' In addition, FMCSA proposes revisions to the DataQs
requirements for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Grant
funding in response to the comments and announces a 60-day comment
period.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-
2023-0190 using any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before
visiting Dockets Operations.
<bullet> Fax: (202) 493-2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Valentine, Data Quality Program
Manager, Analysis Division, Office of Analysis, Research and
Technology, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, (202) 366-4869, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a2919150e0e542c1b161f140e13141f3a1e150e541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df8cbcb0ababf189beb3bab1abb6b1ba9fbbb0abf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2023-0190), indicate the specific section of this
document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document</a>, click on this notice, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552, CBI is
exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the
notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily
treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is
relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your
submission that constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains
proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed8f9f848c83c38ac3898c85818483ad898299c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8898838b84c48dc48e8b82868384aa8e859ec48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>. At this time, you need not send a
duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA
headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document</a> and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice,
then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Dockets Operations.
C. Privacy
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. As described in the System
of Records Notices, DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System, which
can be reviewed at <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices">https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices</a>, the comments are searchable by the
name of the submitter.
II. Background
DataQs is the online system for motor carriers, commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers and other interested parties to request and track
a review of Federal and State crash and inspection data submitted to
and stored by FMCSA that the requester believes is incomplete or
incorrect. This system is critical to allowing users to ensure the data
FMCSA maintains on them is accurate and complete. Users can review
their own data and request corrections to erroneous or incomplete data
records.
On September 14, 2023, FMCSA proposed the development and
implementation of a federal appeals process for Requests for Data
Review (RDRs) submitted to the Agency through its DataQs system (88 FR
63195, FR notice).\1\ FMCSA also announced a 60-day comment period in
the FR notice. The comment period closed on
[[Page 28861]]
November 13, 2023. The proposed appeals process was intended to benefit
users by ensuring appeals are reviewed in an independent and thorough
manner, as well as providing timelines for when the initial request and
appeals process should be completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may view the notice and the comments received at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Public Comments and Response
FMCSA received 54 docket comments in response to the FR notice. Of
these, 42 submissions contained comments specifically on the changes
proposed in that FR notice. The commenters included motor carriers,
drivers, owner-operators, industry associations, safety consultants,
and members of the enforcement community. The following entities
submitted comments on the proposed changes: American Bus Association
(ABA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), Coca-Cola Beverages
Florida, LLC, Compass Coach Inc., Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), Dedicated Logistics, LLC, Gateway RB Transport LLC, Gemini
Motor Transport LP, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), Halvor Lines,
Inc., Hampel Oil Distributors, Henry Seaton on behalf of a group of
organizations,\2\ Jacam Catalyst LLC, Legacy Express LLC, Minnesota
Trucking Association (MTA), National Association of Small Trucking
Companies (NASTC), National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Railsback HazMat Safety
Professionals (Railsback), LLC, Rio Valley Biofuel Transport, Royal
Logistics, INC, Safety Compliance & Training LLC, Suarez Transportation
Inc., Trucker Nation, Truckload Carriers Association, United Motorcoach
Association (UMA), Veolia North America, Lewis Britton, Timothy DeWitt,
Richard Goins, Jim Morgan, Dennis Tant, Patrick Weinbauer, and Dan
Willis. Comments outside the scope of this proposal are not discussed
in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Organizations include Air and Expedited Motor Carriers
Association (AEMCA), Airforwarders Association (AfA), Alliance for
Safe, Efficient, and Competitive Truck Transportation (ASECTT),
American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), Apex Capitol Corp, Auto
Haulers Association of America (AHAA), CDL Drivers Unlimited,
Specialized Furniture Carriers, The Expedite Association of North
America (TEANA), Transportation & Logistics Council (T&LC) and
Transportation Loss Prevention and Security Association (TLP&SA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the comments were balanced in tone and supportive
of FMCSA's proposal to develop and implement a federal appeals process
for RDRs. Many of the commenters provided suggestions on improving the
proposed appeals process and DataQs program more broadly. These
recommendations covered three categories: calls to improve the
impartiality of the RDR process, suggested approaches for the federal
appeals process and the DataQs program, and requests to enhance the
timeliness of RDRs.
The following sections provide a summary of the comments received
and the Agency's responses.
A. Impartiality of the RDR Process
Thirty commenters asked that FMCSA improve the impartiality of the
RDR process. Of those, thirteen commenters (NASTC, NTTC, OOIDA, Trucker
Nation, UMA, Railsback, Hampel Oil Distributors Inc., Jacam Catalyst
LLC, Jim Morgan, Hotshot Trucking Shows USA, Legacy Express LLC, Rio
Valley Biofuel Transport, and one anonymous commenter) took issue with
RDRs being reviewed by the officer, inspector, or agency that performed
the inspection or issued the violation. NTTC stated that ``there are
many times that an inspector refuses to make a correction despite
evidence that they made a mistake,'' while NASTC and Trucker Nation
offered recommendations to improve impartiality during the Initial RDR.
NASTC stated that FMCSA should require States to ``establish
adjudication by independent third parties and to disallow involvement
in adjudication by any state or local body or other party with [an]
actual or appearance of conflict of interest, such as review by the
issuing officer or his or her supervisor.'' Trucker Nation added that
the ``issuing officer [should] serve ONLY as an information source for
the analyst/adjudicator who is assigned to the RDR'' to enhance the
objectivity of the RDR process.
Regarding requests asking that the RDR be reviewed again after the
initial decision on the RDR (RDR reconsideration), six commenters (ABA,
ATA, Gemini Motor Transport LP, Greyhound, OOIDA, and Veolia North
America) recommended that FMCSA's proposed State guidelines include a
requirement that RDR reconsideration requests be addressed by a
reviewer(s) different than the initial reviewer. OOIDA stated ``We feel
the proposed guidelines must include requirements to ensure and certify
that each reconsideration request is addressed by a different reviewer
than the person who performed the initial review of the RDR.'' Other
commenters above echoed this sentiment. In addition, four commenters
(Lewis Britton, Richard Goins, Jim Morgan, and NTTC) indicated that
these RDR Reconsideration requests be handled by neutral independent
parties or panels.
Eight commenters (ABA, ATA, CVSA, Greyhound, NTTC, OOIDA, Trucker
Nation, and Royal Logistics INC) voiced concerns about the differences
in how States address RDRs and called for a standard nationwide
process. CVSA ``concur[s] with the motor carrier community that there
are inconsistencies in how the states treat DataQs and that additional
standardization is appropriate.'' Greyhound added that ``FMCSA should
require, not just suggest, that all states adopt it. For nationwide
carriers like Greyhound, such uniformity is necessary in order to avoid
confusion and unnecessary administrative burdens.'' Trucker Nation
echoed these comments stating ``[e]stablishing a standardized review
process at the State agencies is crucial for ensuring consistency,
fairness, and transparency in decision-making across all State
agencies.'' Trucker Nation also recommended that adoption of this
standardized review process be a requirement for MCSAP Grant funding.
ABA added that this standard process should include ``both initial
requests and reconsideration requests [because] there must be a uniform
system of independent reconsideration at the State level, if the bias
is to be addressed.''
Seven commenters (Compass Coach Inc., Gemini Motor Transport LP,
Hampel Oil Distributors Inc., Trucker Nation, and others) claimed to
have RDRs closed without explanation, which led to assumptions of bias
in the review process. Trucker Nation noted ``motor carriers are often
not afforded the explanation of what actions were taken to reach a
determination because a lack of information is received from
officers.'' Trucker Nation also recommended that FMCSA develop
procedures to ensure RDRs are completed using the same process and that
the process clearly shows carriers the steps taken to reach the
decision.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges commenters requested more impartiality,
uniformity, and transparency in the RDR process. After careful review
and consideration of these comments, FMCSA has determined its initial
proposal for a federal-level appeals process would not sufficiently
address the due process issues that currently exist with State-reviewed
RDRs. Instead, FMCSA is proposing an approach to improve the
fundamental fairness of the RDR process by implementing sufficient
process guardrails for States. Changes would benefit users by ensuring
appeals are
[[Page 28862]]
reviewed in an independent, impartial, uniform, and transparent manner,
as well as providing timelines for the initial request and appeals
process.
FMCSA is also proposing revisions to the MCSAP Grant requirements
in Section IV of this notice in response to commenters' feedback
regarding improving the impartiality, uniformity, and transparency in
the RDR process. These revised requirements would provide necessary
guardrails for the RDR process, accountability for States, and empower
States to take more complete ownership of their DataQs programs.
B. Suggestions for RDR Process
Ten commenters (ABA, Coca-Cola Beverages Florida, LLC, CVSA, Gemini
Motor Transport LP, Greyhound, MTA, OOIDA, Trucker Nation, UMA, and
Veolia North America) called for FMCSA to expand the scope of RDRs
eligible for the federal appeals process. CVSA stated, ``it is [not]
practical to go through the effort that will be involved in
establishing and maintaining this federal appeals process if it will
not address the majority of the RDRs that would be submitted.'' OOIDA
recommended that RDRs eligible for the federal appeals process should
include those ``related to Crash/Inspection/Investigation/Audit,
Registration (MCS-150)/Licensing & Insurance/Operating Authority (OP-1,
OP2), Household Goods (HHG) Complaints, and Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse Violation Petitions . . . [and] any factual disputes
between parties that have not been settled during the initial review
processes.'' Trucker Nation went a step further, stating that ``ALL
violation types should be afforded the opportunity for appeal.''
Unlike the commenters above, ATA supported the limited scope of the
federal appeals process proposed in the FR notice. ATA noted that
``members raised concerns that allowing all RDRs could create a myriad
of submissions that lead to an ineffective independent review
process.'' ATA also suggested that the Agency treat DataQs like the
Crash Preventability Determination Program (CPDP) and propose
enhancements/expansion based on industry comment and feedback.
Six commenters (Gemini Transport LP, Lewis Britton, NTTC, OOIDA,
Trucker Nation, and UMCA) recommended using review panels in the
federal appeals process and suggested criteria for those panels. NTTC
stated that the appeal panel should include members with ``some level
of ground transportation experience [and a] basic understanding of
mechanics, trucking, and maintenance.'' Both OOIDA and Trucker Nation
added that the panel should include industry representation. OOIDA
specifically outlined a five-member review panel with ``two
representatives of a state commercial motor vehicle enforcement agency,
one representative of a state department of transportation, one
representative of a motor carrier, and one representative of a
driver.'' Gemini Transport LP suggested the panel could be made up of
safety and compliance specialists or professionals trained to operate
with a non-biased perspective.
Four commenters (ATA, CVSA, OOIDA, and Trucker Nation) requested
that FMCSA share federal appeals decisions publicly. ATA ``encourages
the Agency to publish, on the DataQ website or other publicly-available
site, summaries of RDRs that are received at the federal level for
independent review and the resulting determination.'' ATA also
recommended that the Agency publish quarterly statistics on
determinations, similar to CPDP. CVSA and OOIDA echoed ATA's suggestion
for public dissemination of RDR decisions and statistics. CVSA
specifically suggested that these decisions be posted on the DataQs and
CSA websites.
Four commenters (ABA, MTA, OOIDA, and UMA) recommended that FMCSA
remove all data related to an active RDR from public websites until an
outcome is decided. OOIDA stated ``no data related to an active DataQs
challenge should be posted on MCMIS, SMS, or any other Agency system.''
ABA, MTA, and UMA concurred with this view.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges that the federal appeals process proposed in the
FR notice was narrow in scope by only reviewing requests pertaining to
interpretation of regulations and policies, leaving many RDRs to be
reviewed under processes that exist today. Regarding the scope of
eligible RDRs, FMCSA's proposal in Section IV of this notice (Proposal:
Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Funding) includes defined
processes at each stage of review that will apply to all RDRs submitted
for State-collected data in DataQs.
FMCSA concurs with the comments calling for the use of a panel in
the RDR process. FMCSA's proposal outlined in Section IV of this notice
includes requirements for the use of a panel of subject matter experts
in the decision-making process for RDR Reconsideration and Final Review
requests.
FMCSA is committed to increasing awareness and understanding of the
DataQs process among users. As part of FMCSA's proposal outlined in
Section IV, the Agency would require that each State submit a DataQs
Implementation Plan detailing their RDR processes and procedures.
Approved plans would be made available to the public on the DataQs
website to promote transparency and reasonable expectations. In
addition, FMCSA is proposing that the responses for closed (those in
which a decision has been issued) RDRs include explanatory reasons for
the decision so that users can better understand the decision-making
process and interpret the State's conclusions. As this proposal is
State-centered and does not include centralized federal review,
decisions from RDRs would not be posted publicly on FMCSA website but
would be available to the parties involved with the RDR.
Finally, FMCSA does not agree with the suggestion to remove all
data related to pending RDRs from public view. Removing this data
creates opportunities for requestors to ``improve'' their safety
records in the short term by submitting frivolous RDRs, which would
impact the efficacy of the DataQs program and other FMCSA safety
programs. FMCSA will continue to display all motor carrier safety data
(i.e., crashes, inspections, and investigations) on its websites.
C. Timeliness of RDR Process
Ten commenters (ABA, ATA, Dedicated Logistics, Greyhound, Halvor
Lines, MTA, OOIDA, Trucker Nation, UMA, and Veolia North America)
voiced concerns around the timeliness of the current RDR process. ABA,
Greyhound, and Halvor Lines, Inc. all agreed that establishing
deadlines would improve the effectiveness of the RDR process. ABA
noted, ``If appropriate deadlines are not established, the process will
be ineffectual, and both the MCMIS data will suffer as well as the
regulated community.'' Greyhound added that ``reasonable time limits
should be imposed on the initial RDR decision and the decision on
reconsideration.'' OOIDA and MTA suggested specific timelines. OOIDA
recommended that all RDRs be decided within 60 days of the initial
request, the initial review and RDR Reconsideration be completed within
30 days, and the federal appeal review (if approved) should be
completed within 30 days. MTA suggested that States have one week to
complete their review of the RDR.
[[Page 28863]]
ATA went a step further and recommended that FMCSA provide ``an
outline of the expected review-time once the RDR is received at the
federal level, the steps the Agency is taking to address the backlog of
current RDRs, and how the program implementation will be handled.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA agrees that the timeliness of RDRs is important to the DataQs
program and other safety programs. Timely, accurate, and complete data
advances the Agency's safety mission and leads to safer roads. FMCSA's
proposal outlined in Section IV of this notice includes timeline
standards for each stage of RDR review. These standards aim to improve
the timeliness of the RDR process by requiring States to open, review,
and communicate a decision within 21 days of the requestor's submission
of an RDR and RDR Reconsideration requests, and within 30 days of the
requestor's submission for Final Review requests.
IV. Proposal: Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Funding
In response to the stakeholder feedback provided, FMCSA is
proposing revisions to the DataQs requirements for MCSAP grant funding
to ensure proper due process for users of the DataQs system. These
requirements aim to improve the impartiality, timeliness, transparency,
and fundamental fairness of the RDR process, thereby strengthening
FMCSA's ability to make data-driven decisions that inform resource
allocation, policy changes, and new initiatives to prevent large truck
and motorcoach-involved crashes and enhance safety on the nation's
roads. The requirements would apply to requests submitted in DataQs on
State-owned data; they would not apply to federally-owned data, i.e.,
requests submitted to CPDP, petitions submitted to the Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse Program, or other FMCSA offices.
FMCSA's proposal would require States to incorporate a multi-level
review process for RDRs, escalating the review from the DataQs analyst
in the State MCSAP Lead Agency to a responsible decision-maker or panel
of subject matter experts. Each RDR would be evaluated based on the
documentation and evidence provided by the submitter of the RDR, along
with any State documents or evidence. States would be encouraged to
adopt a multi-level review process appropriate for their agency(s)
structure to support independent evaluation of the request. This multi-
level review process would benefit the ability for requestors to get a
fair and thorough response with assessment from multiple evaluators
within a State. Each State would be required to submit a DataQs
Implementation Plan to FMCSA detailing how their agency will meet
FMCSA's requirements for each stage of the RDR review process. The
proposed requirements for the RDR review process are outlined below.
General Requirements
<bullet> States must establish points of contact for crash and
inspection RDRs.
<bullet> States must accept and conduct a good faith review of all
inspection-related RDRs that are submitted within 3 years from the date
of inspection and, for all crash-related RDRs, for 5 years from the
date of a crash.
<bullet> States must follow FMCSA's policy related to Adjudicated
Citations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Further information about the FMCSA policy is available at
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/06/05/2014-13022/motor-carrier-management-information-system-mcmis-changes-to-improve-uniformity-in-the-treatment-of">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/06/05/2014-13022/motor-carrier-management-information-system-mcmis-changes-to-improve-uniformity-in-the-treatment-of</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> State MCSAP Lead Agencies must submit a DataQs
Implementation Plan for how the agency will meet the objectives and
requirements of the Initial Review, Reconsideration Review, and Final
Review processes. In addition, the plan must outline how the agency
will address any existing backlog of RDRs and what steps they will take
to prevent a potential backlog moving forward.
<bullet> States must submit an Initial DataQs Implementation Plan
that must be approved by FMCSA. Updates to the plan must be submitted
as part of the annual Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) process. If
changes do not meet FMCSA's requirements, FMCSA will notify the State,
and the previous version of the plan will remain in effect until the
State obtains FMCSA approval of any changes. Approved plans would be
made available to the public through DataQs.
<bullet> States must participate in FMCSA program reviews of their
DataQs processes. and procedures, as required for current existing
MCSAP programs.
State Plan Requirements
Initial Review Process Requirements
<bullet> States must open an RDR within seven days of submission.
The status of the RDR would then change from ``New'' to ``Open--In
Review.''
<bullet> States must respond to the RDR, either to request
additional information or communicate a decision, within 21 days of
submission.
<bullet> If the State requests additional information from the
requestor, the requestor has 14 days to provide the information. These
14 days do not impact the timeline for the State's review. The clock
will stop while the requestor gathers additional information and will
restart if the requestor responds to the State. If the requestor does
not respond, the system will close the request with the status
``Closed--No Requestor Response.'' A request that is reopened after
being closed for no response will be reviewed at the level it was
closed, and not escalated.
<bullet> The issuing officer or inspector cannot be the sole
decision-maker when the outcome of the RDR is ``Closed--No Data
Correction Made.''
<bullet> Each RDR closed with the status ``Closed--No Data
Correction Made'' must adequately explain the facts and analysis
supporting the decision. Responses must contain the following
information:
[cir] Description of or link to the State's approved DataQs
Implementation Plan;
[cir] Decision-maker (name and title);
[cir] List of evidence reviewed;
[cir] Decision;
[cir] Specific reason(s) for decision; and
[cir] Next steps/directions for more information (RDR
Reconsideration process).
RDR Reconsideration Review Process
<bullet> The RDR Reconsideration process is applicable to requests
that received a full review and a decision during the Initial Review
phase, and the requestor is seeking an additional level of review. It
would not include requests that are closed due to lack of information,
or those reopened without a valid reason.
<bullet> States must open a RDR Reconsideration request within 7
days of the request.
<bullet> As in the Initial Review process, if the State requests
additional information from the requestor during the RDR
Reconsideration, the requestor has 14 days to provide the information.
These 14 days do not impact the timeline for the State's review. The
clock will stop while the requestor gathers additional information and
will restart if the requestor responds to the State. If the requestor
does not respond, the system will close the request with the status
``Closed--No Requestor Response.''
<bullet> States must reach a decision and communicate it to the
submitter within 21 days.
<bullet> The RDR Reconsideration must be reviewed and decided by a
person or panel with appropriate subject matter expertise within the
MCSAP Lead Agency.
<bullet> The RDR Reconsideration must not be reviewed or decided by
the issuing
[[Page 28864]]
officer or inspector, nor a direct supervisor of the issuing officer or
inspector.
<bullet> Legal review should be incorporated, where applicable.
<bullet> Each RDR Reconsideration closed with the status ``Closed--
No Data Correction Made'' must adequately explain the facts and
analysis supporting the decision. Responses must contain the following
information:
[cir] Decision-maker (name and title);
[cir] Description of evidence reviewed;
[cir] Decision;
[cir] Specific reason(s) for decision; and
[cir] Next steps/directions for more information (Final Review
process).
Final Review Process Requirements
<bullet> The Final Review process is applicable to requests that
received a full review and a decision during the Initial Review phase,
RDR Reconsideration phase, and the requestor is seeking a third and
final level of review. States must open a Final Review request within
seven days of the request.
<bullet> As in the Initial Review and RDR Reconsideration
processes, if the State requests additional information from the
requestor during the Final Review, the requestor has 14 days to provide
the information. These 14 days do not impact the timeline for the
State's review. The clock will stop while the requestor gathers
additional information and will restart if the requestor responds to
the State. If the requestor does not respond, the system will close the
request with the status ``Closed--No Requestor Response.''
<bullet> States must reach a decision on the Final Review and
communicate it to the submitter within 30 days.
<bullet> The Final Review must be escalated for review by a
responsible decision-maker identified by the State (e.g., Senior Leader
in the MCSAP Office) who is outside the chain of command for the
issuing officer or inspector. Alternatively, the review may be
delegated to a panel that provides a recommendation to the decision-
maker. Panels could include representatives from the State's existing
DataQs Review Council, CVSA, or the trucking industry, etc. However,
the person(s) or panel reviewing and/or deciding the Final Review must
not be anyone involved in the review or decision of the Initial RDR
decision or RDR Reconsideration decision.
<bullet> The State's decision would be considered final by FMCSA
after the Final Review is completed.
<bullet> FMCSA will be available to consult during the RDR
Reconsideration or Final Review processes if a State requests FMCSA's
assistance or interpretation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, Hazardous Materials Regulations, or related policy.
Burden of Proof Applicable to RDRs, RDR Reconsideration Requests, and
Final Review Requests
<bullet> The burden of proof for all requests within DataQs (RDRs,
RDR Reconsideration Requests, and Final Review Requests) remains with
the requester. Requests to remove or modify information that negatively
impacts the requester or others will not be successful without factual
and/or legal justification of why the information is incorrect or
incomplete, providing documentation supporting the request when
necessary.
<bullet> Unsubstantiated requests may be returned to the requester
for more information or closed with no action taken. Requests that are
closed for no response from the requester will not be deemed a
substantive decision by the State and may be reopened once a sufficient
response is received.
<bullet> For RDR Reconsideration Requests and Final Review
Requests, requesters must address the State's factual and/or legal
basis for the decision and explain why the requestor believes the
decision to be incorrect, with submission of additional documentation
supporting the request when necessary.
V. Comments Sought
FMCSA seeks comments on the proposal described above. In addition,
the Agency is asking for input on the following questions related to
the proposal:
1. FMCSA outlined proposed revisions to DataQs requirements for
MCSAP Grant funding in Section IV above. What are the potential
benefits associated with this proposal? What are the potential
challenges?
2. What challenges, if any, will States face in adhering to the
timelines for each stage of the RDR process outlined above? Are there
any other factors FMCSA should consider related to timelines?
a. FMCSA proposes that the time an RDR spends with the requestor
when the State asks for additional information will not impact the
timeline for the State's review. The clock will stop while the
requestor gathers additional information and will restart if the
requestor responds. Is this approach reasonable?
b. When the State requests additional information from other State/
local enforcement entities, how should FMCSA account for the time when
the RDR needs input from State or Federal personnel outside the MCSAP
Lead Agency?
c. FMCSA acknowledges that meeting the timeline standard for every
RDR may not be achievable. How should delays by either the State or the
requestor in the RDR process be handled? What are some examples of
extenuating circumstances that would delay the review of an RDR?
3. The proposal outlined in Section IV revises MCSAP Grant
requirements and would impact funding distributed by FMCSA. How should
States be held accountable for compliance?
4. If the State does not receive information from the requestor
when additional information is requested, or the additional information
the requestor provides is inadequate, how should the RDR be handled?
Should the State reserve the right to proceed with the review and come
to a decision? Should the previous round of review get another chance
to reconsider their previous decision when new information is provided?
5. To what extent should FMCSA prescriptively define the criteria
for a ``valid reason'' for the Reconsideration Review Process described
in Section IV versus leaving this determination to the States? If FMCSA
were to define the process, what specific information should a
submitter be required to provide to meet that standard?
VI. Next Steps
FMCSA thanks industry stakeholders and enforcement personnel for
engaging in the comment period to continually improve the RDR process
and the DataQs program. These processes help ensure complete and
accurate data is available to focus FMCSA resources where they will
have the greatest impact on safety. A follow-up notice in the Federal
Register will respond to any comments received and announce the revised
MCSAP Grant requirements with ample time prior to implementation.
Sue Lawless,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-12059 Filed 6-27-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 1, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.