Notice2026-07429
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
April 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
FMCSA addresses comments received in response to the Agency's July 1, 2025 Federal Register notice titled, "Proposed Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding." In addition, FMCSA announces revised DataQs Requirements for Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) Grant Funding, based on input from the public, industry, and State Partners.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20561-20568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07429]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0190]
Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA addresses comments received in response to the Agency's
July 1, 2025 Federal Register notice titled, ``Proposed Revisions to
DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding.'' In addition, FMCSA
announces revised DataQs Requirements for Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP) Grant
[[Page 20562]]
Funding, based on input from the public, industry, and State Partners.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Scott Valentine, Data Quality Program Manager, Analysis
Division, Office of Research, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4869, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90c3f3ffe4e4bec6f1fcf5fee4f9fef5d0f4ffe4bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e5d6d617a7a20586f626b607a67606b4e6a617a20696178">[email protected]</span></a>. If
you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized into the following
sections:
I. Background
II. Summary of Public Comments and Response
A. Question 1
B. Question 2
C. Question 3
D. Question 4
E. Question 5
III. Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding
IV. Next Steps
I. 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 requestor believes is incomplete or
incorrect. This system is critical to allowing users to ensure the data
FMCSA maintains is accurate and complete. Users can review their own
data and request corrections to erroneous or incomplete data records.
Each year FMCSA publishes information on approximately 3 million
inspections, 5 million violations, and over 180,000 vehicles involved
in Federally-reportable crashes. In 2024, DataQs received 8,314
requests on crash data and 63,548 requests concerning inspections and
violations.
On July 1, 2025, FMCSA issued a Federal Register notice (90 FR
28860) that addressed comments received in response to the Agency's
September 14, 2023 Federal Register notice titled, ``Appeal Process:
Requests for Data Review'' (88 FR 63195). In addition, the Agency's
July 1, 2025 notice proposed revisions to the DataQs requirements for
MCSAP Grant funding in response to the comments to the 2023 notice. The
comment period closed on September 2, 2025.
II. Summary of Public Comments and Response
FMCSA received 223 docket comments in response to the July 1, 2025
Federal Register notice. Of these, 105 submissions contained comments
that were relevant to the proposal, and 20 commenters specifically
addressed the questions posed in Section V of the 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: Air Support Inc., AIST Safety Consulting, Alamo Supplies LLC,
American Trucking Associations (ATA), Arizona Start Trucking, LLC, AWM
Associates, LLC, Barney Trucking, Bisran LLC, Brenntag North America,
California Highway Patrol (CHP), Chemicals Inc, Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA), Commodity Transporters, Contractor Transport
LLC, CORT Business Services Corporation, Dean Transportation, Inc., Dot
Compliance Services, EL Trucking Inc., Elliott Safety Services LLC, Elo
Max Transport, Environmental Restoration LLC, Farias Transportation,
Fencing Supply Group, FTI Coach, GetGo Transportation, GoRiteway
Transportation Group, Inc., Green Lines Transportation, Inc., Greyhound
Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), Gypsum Express LTD, HVMC Transportation LLC,
Independent Carrier Safety Association, JW Didado Electric LLC, K-3BMI,
Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP), Knight-Swift Transportation, KODEA-LTS,
Lawrence Transportation Company, Leaders Moving Co, Lindsey Petroleum
Transport, Marck Trucking LLC, Maryland Department of Transportation/
State Highway Administration, MP Environmental Services Inc, My Fleet
AI, Navigator Truck Insurance Agency, Nebraska State Patrol, NFI
Transportation, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), North
Carolina State Highway Patrol, NUCO2 Supply, LLC, OffSpec Solutions DBA
Cool Mountain Transport, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA), Panther Creek Transportation, PI&I Motor Express Inc., Pope
Consultant Services, LLC, Puget Sound Transfer & Storage, Ray Walker
Trucking, Royalane Trucking LLC, Specialty Delivery & Logistics, Inc.,
Spur Transit, Steve Talkington Consulting, Inc., Tennessee Highway
Patrol, Texas TransEastern Inc., TJ Potter Trucking, TNT Service LLC,
Trans Alliance LLC, TransOil Marketing, Transport Express Inc.,
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), Truline Corp, Universe Transport
LLC, VASCOR Transport LTD, Tim Watson, Nadir Ali, and other individuals
who did not identify their organizations. Many stakeholders provided
comments on multiple aspects of DataQs and other FMCSA programs.
There were 118 comments that were outside the scope of the proposed
revisions to DataQs requirements for MCSAP grant funding and are not
discussed in this notice. Of these, 43 comments related to the Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse, 19 focused on the Crash Preventability
Determination Program, 23 followed up on a specific DataQs request, 21
covered other FMCSA topics (e.g., FMCSA Portal, Safety Measurement
System, adjudicated citations, Pre-Employment Screening Program,
warnings, inspections), and 12 discussed the broader trucking industry.
The majority of the relevant comments were supportive of FMCSA's
proposal to revise the DataQs requirements for MCSAP funding. Common
themes from the comments included support for improving the timeliness
of reviews, ensuring impartial and fair decision-making through multi-
level reviews, improving uniformity in the review processes across
States, and incorporating independent or third-party reviewers into the
Request for Data Review (RDR) process.
The following sections provide a summary of the comments received
related to the five questions posed in the July 1, 2025 Federal
Register notice and the Agency's responses.
Question 1: FMCSA outlined proposed revisions to DataQs requirements
for MCSAP Grant funding in Section IV in the July 1, 2025 Federal
Register notice. What are the potential benefits associated with this
proposal? What are the potential challenges?
Potential Benefits
Ten commenters (ATA, CHP, CVSA, Greyhound, KHP, Knight-Swift
Transportation, NJDOT, OOIDA, TCA, and Tim Watson) outlined potential
benefits of the proposed revisions to the DataQs requirements. ATA,
CVSA, Greyhound, Knight-Swift Transportation, and OOIDA stated that the
proposed revisions will offer benefits, including greater consistency,
timeliness, and objectivity in the RDR process. OOIDA cited the 75-day
timeline to complete the RDR process and the requirement to have RDRs
that are ``Closed--No Data Correction Made'' reviewed by a third-party
as ``two transformative changes'' that will build trust in the DataQs
process and improve the accuracy and completeness of FMCSA data. Tim
Watson echoed OOIDA stating that the ``the greatest
[[Page 20563]]
provision is for a `second set of eyes' on the request,'' which will
lend more credibility to the process. ATA and Greyhound emphasized the
importance of FMCSA ensuring States are in compliance with the new
requirements. ATA also voiced support for the requirement to make
approved DataQs Implementation Plans publicly accessible and suggested
that FMCSA further assist States and motor carriers in the rollout of
these new DataQs requirements by publishing successes and best
practices.
Potential Challenges
Seven commenters (ATA, CHP, CVSA, Greyhound, KHP, NJDOT, and TCA)
outlined potential challenges associated with the proposed revisions.
ATA, CHP, and NJDOT mentioned that the robust multi-level review
process may increase workloads for States. NJDOT added that any new
staff hired to meet the increased demand will require training on the
new multi-level review process. ATA and CVSA noted another challenge:
ensuring that States implement the requirements as consistently as
possible while giving States the flexibility to account for their own
size, structure, and unique characteristics TCA highlighted that it may
be difficult to ensure reviews are ``conducted in good faith,'' as bias
could still exist if all reviewers are from the same agency or
department. KHP voiced concern that the new process would provide the
opportunity for bad actors to create and submit more fraudulent
requests and supporting documentation.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges that the new requirements will be a change for
States. Every State that does not have a multi-level review process in
place will need to incorporate one and every State will need to develop
an implementation plan. While challenging, these steps have the
potential to systematically improve RDR outcomes and create a more
streamlined process in the long-term. States already implementing
similar review processes to that proposed by FMCSA have shared with
FMCSA that they receive fewer repeat RDR submissions.
In addition, support for these DataQs requirements will be an
allowable expense under FMCSA's MCSAP Grant Program. For example,
States may use this funding to hire additional staff/create a new role,
to support the additional time needed for the multi-level review
process, and to provide training/onboarding for staff. FMCSA expects to
begin training and outreach on the new requirements, including the
DataQs Implementation Plans, in Spring 2026.
FMCSA recognizes the challenge of ensuring consistent
implementation of the new requirements while allowing States to account
for their own unique characteristics. These requirements aim to improve
oversight by setting timelines and making State and FMCSA processes
more transparent. The DataQs Implementation Plans will let each State
customize how they meet these requirements. In addition, tying the
DataQs requirements to MCSAP funding will help ensure the new standards
are applied fairly and consistently.
FMCSA agrees that State compliance with the new requirements will
be critical to the Agency's efforts to set high data quality standards.
Each State must submit a DataQs Implementation Plan for FMCSA review
and approval. Through this review process, FMCSA will work with States
to ensure they meet the requirements.
Question 2: What challenges, if any, will States face in adhering to
the timelines for each stage of the RDR process? Are there any other
factors FMCSA should consider related to timelines?
General Comments
Four commenters (CVSA, Greyhound, KHP, and OOIDA) did not offer
challenges but took the opportunity to voice support for the proposed
timelines. CVSA also recommended that FMCSA consider ``the
jurisdiction's average response times, rather than applying these
timelines to each individual RDR,'' which will allow for anomalies that
will occur, while holding jurisdictions accountable for timely
responses. OOIDA added that DataQs Implementation Plans will assist
States in meeting the proposed timelines. Greyhound noted that the 21-
day timeframe for an Initial Review or a Reconsideration Review seems
reasonable but will require States to respond in a timely and efficient
manner.
Challenges
Four commenters (ATA, CHP, TCA, and Tim Watson) noted that State
staffing capacity is a key challenge to meeting the proposed timelines.
ATA mentioned that States with large inspection volumes and limited
staff may have difficulty meeting deadlines and quicker timelines for
review and response may strain resources. Tim Watson added that the
quicker reviews could increase personnel hours. CHP stated that it may
be difficult to coordinate and schedule the 30-day Final Review with a
panel that does not include any previous reviewers.
Other Factors for Consideration
Two commenters (ATA and CVSA) recommended FMCSA apply the same
timelines to Federal responses to ensure industry is receiving timely
responses from both their State and Federal partners. ATA also asked
for clarification on whether the timelines are based on business days
or calendar days. CVSA recommended using business days for the
timelines when staff are reasonably expected to work.
Two commenters (Greyhound and TCA) provided additional input on the
21-day response period for an Initial Review or a Reconsideration
Review. Greyhound asked for clarity on what will happen if a State
fails to render a decision or requests more information within the 21-
day period. TCA noted that many of their members believe the 21-day
response period is too long given the time-sensitive nature of carrier
inspection and crash data, which is updated monthly.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges that staffing challenges may make meeting RDR
timelines difficult. As noted in the response to Question 1, States can
use MCSAP funding for hiring, training, extra personnel hours, or other
needed resources to help address these challenges. In addition, the
Agency is committed to working with States on their DataQs
Implementation Plans to find State-specific solutions for the new
program requirements.
Regarding the additional factors for consideration, FMCSA
understands the importance of similar timeliness standards for Federal
RDRs and is currently evaluating similar timeliness standards for
Federal inspection-related RDRs. The timelines are based on calendar
days, rather than business days. Calendar days are simple to track and
uniform nationwide, unlike business days which may vary by State and
Federal agency. The Agency believes that the calendar-day based
timelines build in sufficient time for staff to address requests during
working hours.
In response to Greyhound, FMCSA will monitor States to ensure they
are meeting required deadlines. The Agency will use the annual MCSAP
reviews to assess States' compliance with the DataQs requirements,
including deadlines (see Question 3 below). FMCSA recognizes TCA's
point that the timeliness of RDRs is important to motor carriers.
Currently, some States complete reviews in less than 21 days,
[[Page 20564]]
while others take longer. The goal of these new requirements is to set
a fair expectation for all States. The Agency will revisit RDR
timelines after gathering data during implementation.
2A. 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?
Six commenters (CHP, CVSA, KHP, Knight-Swift Transportation, NJDOT,
and OOIDA) agreed that pausing the clock while the requestor gathers
additional information is reasonable. OOIDA suggested that FMCSA
clarify that the clock will ``resume'' rather than ``restart,'' meaning
that the clock will continue from where it stopped rather than go back
to day one of the RDR. Tim Watson suggested that DataQs include a
mechanism for the requestor to indicate if they do not have any
additional information, which would prevent the State from waiting for
the entire 14-day period to close the RDR. ATA deferred to State law
enforcement and CVSA for insights on questions 2a-c.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA concurs that stopping the clock while the requestor gathers
additional information is a reasonable approach. The Agency also
clarifies that the clock will resume (not restart back at day one of
the review) once the requestor responds. This approach will give the
requestor a fair chance to provide additional information without
impacting the timeline. States should only be requesting information
necessary to make the decision. To address Mr. Watson's comment, FMCSA
plans to release improvements to the DataQs system later this year to
support the new RDR process and promote transparency, such as adding
new notification options for the requestor and reviewers.
2B. 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?
Three commenters (CHP, CVSA, and KHP) recommend that FMCSA take the
``same stop the clock'' approach when waiting for information from an
external agency as when the State is waiting for additional information
from the requestor, as the conditions are similar. CVSA added that if a
State consistently stops the clock because of delays from external
agencies, FMCSA can work with that State to address the challenge. CHP
and KHP also suggested that the DataQs system include indicators for
local agency review to increase transparency. NJDOT noted that the
clock should only stop for the lead agency, with a set time allocated
for input from State or Federal personnel. OOIDA stated that while some
cases may require additional time, State and local enforcement agencies
should complete the request for more information within 21-day or 30-
day response periods to ensure reviews are finished within the proposed
timeliness thresholds.
FMCSA Response
MCSAP Lead Agencies are responsible for adjudicating RDRs through
the review process in a timely manner. Therefore, the clock will keep
running when the Lead Agency requests additional information from
external State and local enforcement entities. However, FMCSA
acknowledges that some RDRs may be complex and as a result, may require
additional time. FMCSA will work with Lead Agencies to address these
RDRs on an individual basis. These exceptions are not expected to
greatly impact a State's overall timeliness.
2C. 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?
Handling Delays
Seven commenters (CHP, Greyhound, KHP, Knight-Swift Transportation,
OOIDA, Nadir Ali, and Tim Watson) offered different views on how to
address delays. CHP and Tim Watson supported managing delays on
individual RDRs through clear, transparent status updates. KHP,
Greyhound, and Tim Watson noted that if an RDR is delayed for an
extended period of time, a decision should be made, and action should
be taken. Greyhound proposed granting the request if the delay is on
the State and denying it if it is on the requestor. OOIDA and Nadir Ali
supported extending timelines for legitimate delays; OOIDA expects this
to apply only to a small number of cases. Knight-Swift Transportation
and Tim Watson recommended tracking and documenting RDR timeliness.
CVSA and Tim Watson urged that FMCSA work directly with agencies facing
persistent delays on RDRs. CVSA added that delays outside the MCSAP
lead agency should not impact RDR timelines.
Extenuating Circumstances
Commenters listed a variety of extenuating circumstances that could
be considered legitimate reasons for RDR delays. Examples included
health and personal issues of the reviewer or requestor (KHP, CVSA,
OOIDA, and Tim Watson); response time or limited availability of
outside resources (CHP, CVSA, and Nadir Ali); technical issues and
system outages (CVSA, Knight-Swift Transportation, and Tim Watson);
complex RDRs requiring additional research (CVSA and OOIDA); natural
disasters or State emergencies (Greyhound and Tim Watson); government
shutdowns (Greyhound); and legal holds (Knight-Swift Transportation).
Other Considerations
CHP and CVSA expressed concern related to the time and scheduling
requirements for the Final Review. CHP indicated that convening a panel
on an almost daily basis for the Final Review would be challenging and
difficult to coordinate. CVSA echoed this concern, noting that the
current 30-day timeframe is not sufficient given the need to align
multiple reviewer schedules; they recommended a 45-day timeline for the
Final Review to allow adequate time for scheduling and coordination
among panel members.
CVSA also noted that RDRs related to adjudicated citations should
be closed pending court decisions. Once a ruling is made, the RDR could
be reopened to avoid unnecessary delays.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA agrees that RDR outcomes should not be delayed indefinitely
and emphasizes the importance of open, regular communication when
extenuating circumstances arise. However, automatic action based solely
on delays is not consistent with the intent of DataQs and FMCSA's Data
Quality program. Decisions must be based on the validity of the claim.
To help States monitor their RDRs, FMCSA plans to develop State
performance measures and publish timeline reports on the DataQs website
once sufficient data is collected. These measures will also be
published on the DataQs website.
Regarding Final Review panels, FMCSA acknowledges that convening
the panels may present scheduling
[[Page 20565]]
challenges, but affirms their value for comprehensive, independent
reviews. However, FMCSA agrees with CHP and CVSA's recommendation to
extend the Final Review timeline to 45 days to account for scheduling.
For adjudicated citations, FMCSA confirms that requests can be held
while pending with the relevant jurisdiction for adjudication and
should only proceed once resolved through a state or local court/
administrative proceeding, but should not remain open indefinitely.
Question 3: The proposal outlined in Section IV of the July 1, 2025
Federal Register notice revises MCSAP Grant requirements and would
impact funding distributed by FMCSA. How should States be held
accountable for compliance?
Linking Compliance to MCSAP Funding
Four commenters (ATA, Greyhound, Knight-Swift Transportation, and
OOIDA) supported linking the requirements to MCSAP Funding. Greyhound
and OOIDA believe that FMCSA should withhold MCSAP funding if States do
not comply with requirements. ATA supports linking compliance to MCSAP
grant funding with thresholds that are clear and proportionate to State
size and volume, and that take potential challenges into consideration.
Greyhound recommends monitoring compliance through the MCSAP review
process and providing a mechanism for others to file complaints against
non-compliant States. Two commenters (TCA and Tim Watson) voiced
concern that withholding funding could cause more delays instead of
improving timeliness.
State Performance Measures
Three commenters (ATA, TCA, and Tim Watson) recommended that FMCSA
publish performance measures on State compliance with the requirements
to increase accountability and set expectations on RDR timelines and
incentivize States to improve their timeliness. ATA recommended
publishing State compliance rates, backlog data, and best practices.
TCA suggested State-level results showing the percentage of RDRs
completed and average review times. Tim Watson proposed that FMCSA use
data analysis to identify delays and bottlenecks and address
performance issues.
Technical Support
Four commenters (CVSA, KHP, Knight-Swift Transportation, and Tim
Watson) suggested that FMCSA provide technical support to help States
comply with the revised DataQs requirements. Knight-Swift
Transportation noted that the Agency should offer technical support or
phased implementation for States with limited resources. While CVSA
recommended that the Agency work directly with States to identify
challenges and resolve delays, Tim Watson suggested that the Agency
equip States with monitoring data so they can address their own
performance issues. KHP suggested sending notifications to non-
compliant States.
Measuring Timeliness
Two commenters (CHP and CVSA) believe that timeliness requirements
should not be based on individual RDRs. CHP recommended FMCSA use
percentage-based criteria, similar to what is used for crashes and
inspections; CVSA suggested the Agency focus on average response times.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA is committed to working with States to ensure they can comply
with the new DataQs requirements for MCSAP funding. FMCSA will help
States develop their implementation plans, including processes designed
to meet the revised requirements, and the Agency will provide technical
support through the Data Quality Program. However, improving the
timeliness of RDR resolutions is a primary objective of this revised
process. FMCSA will monitor State adherence to these new timeliness
standards and unwarranted delays will be addressed through the MCSAP
evaluation and approval process to ensure accountability. To support
this ongoing monitoring, FMCSA plans to implement performance measures
on State performance once enough data is collected to be meaningful and
results will be published for States and the public. As CHP commented
above, the measures will be percentage-based using a methodology
similar to the State Safety Data Quality timeliness measures used for
inspection and crash data.
Ultimately, the timeliness performance measures will become a
regular part of annual MCSAP reviews. MCSAP lead agencies will be
required to include timeliness performance measures in their annual
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans, which will be evaluated by FMCSA.
Question 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?
Closing/Proceeding With RDR, No Requestor Response
Six commenters (ATA, CHP, CVSA, KHP, NJDOT, and Tim Watson) stated
that RDRs should be closed without changes if the requestor fails to
provide the requested information. CVSA recommended shorter response
windows (close the RDR after 7 days instead of 14 days) and KHP
recommended allowing for resubmission if the requestor is able to
produce the information at a later date. CHP and KHP emphasized that
the burden of proof lies with the requestor.
Nine commenters (ATA, CHP, CVSA, Greyhound, Knight-Swift
Transportation, OOIDA, NJDOT, TCA, and Tim Watson) noted that States
should be able to proceed with reviews and issue decisions based on
existing information if the requestor is unresponsive, while allowing
for reconsideration if new evidence appears.
Importance of Communication
Five commenters (ATA, CHP, OOIDA, TCA, and Tim Watson) emphasized
the need for clear communication, including notifications, reminders,
and one chance to correct insufficient submissions before closing the
RDR; TCA asked FMCSA to define what counts as ``adequate'' information
to help ensure consistency across States.
Reviewing New Information
Five commenters (CHP, CVSA, Greyhound, NJDOT, and Tim Watson)
stated that new information should be reviewed at the initial stage
rather than escalating to higher levels. CVSA stressed that later
reviews must use the same information as the initial review for
consistency. CHP cautioned that escalation could require more expertise
and extend timelines. OOIDA and Greyhound supported letting the
previous reviewer reconsider its decision if new information is
provided within deadlines. NJDOT noted that States should decide if the
new information is significant enough to warrant reconsideration, and
it should not automatically trigger a review. Tim
[[Page 20566]]
Watson questioned whether sending RDRs back to the Initial Reviewer
would add unnecessary steps.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA appreciates the input on requesting and reviewing additional
information in the RDR process. To keep the process simple while
allowing for State discretion, requestors will have 14 days to submit
additional documentation if requested by the State. A State may only
request additional information that is relevant and material to the
disposition of the review. If the requestor does not respond, the
DataQs system will close the RDR with a status of ``Closed--No
Requestor Response.'' However, if sufficient information was provided
with the initial RDR, States should complete the RDR without the
requested additional information and update the RDR status in the
system accordingly.
FMCSA agrees with CVSA that if a new RDR is submitted with new
evidence, it may be returned to the Initial Reviewer before it is
raised to another level of appeal. This will ensure greater consistency
in reviews by giving all reviewers access to the same information to
reach a decision.
Defining what counts as ``adequate'' documentation is difficult
because the circumstances surrounding each RDR can vary widely. There
is no one-size-fits-all definition that works across the various types
of requests submitted. States are best suited to decide on a case-by-
case basis if the documents received are sufficient for a given
request.
Question 5: To what extent should FMCSA prescriptively define the
criteria for a ``valid reason'' for the Reconsideration Review Process
described in Section IV of the July 1, 2025 Federal Register notice
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?
Defining Criteria for a ``Valid Reason''
Four commenters (ATA, Greyhound, Knight-Swift Transportation, and
TCA) supported FMCSA setting clear criteria for what counts as a
``valid reason'' in the Reconsideration Review process. Greyhound
supported prescriptive rules to create a ``uniform standard and avoid
any abuse of the general term'' while ATA agreed on clear and
consistent standards with State discretion on applying them. Tim Watson
recommended that FMCSA leverage the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) to establish criteria for a ``valid reason,'' noting
that some criteria should be defined to avoid frivolous requests.
Three commenters (CHP, CVSA, and KHP) argued for more flexible
guidelines. CHP noted that every RDR will be different and individual
States should determine what counts as a ``valid reason.'' CVSA stated
that a set list of reasons would be too restrictive, and OOIDA argued
that there should not be a list and every RDR should be eligible for
Reconsideration Review.
Seven commenters (ATA, CHP, Greyhound, Knight-Swift Transportation,
NJDOT, TCA, and Tom Watson) suggested that the submitter be required to
provide specific reasons and supporting documentation for the
Reconsideration Review. NJDOT suggested that submitters complete a
standardized form capturing the new information, its relevance and
impact on the Initial Review decision, and documentation from previous
reviews. Tim Watson added that the submitter should explain why the
Initial Review's closure explanation is incorrect. Greyhound and
Knight-Swift Transportation recommended citing reasons such as failure
to properly consider critical evidence, decisions not logically
supported by evidence, new evidence available, and procedural errors.
ATA, CHP, and TCA asked that submitters provide factual documentation
(ATA), verifiable documents (e.g., Docusign) (CHP), and video footage
(TCA).
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges commenters' input on how to define valid reasons
and supporting documentation for appealing requests for Reconsideration
or Final Review. At the outset, it would be premature and potentially
restrictive to attempt to capture all the potential reasons why
requests are elevated. FMCSA sets basic parameters for requesting
Reconsideration and Final Review below. In addition, FMCSA acknowledges
that there must be a basis for any appeal, and will require the
requestor to state the factual or legal error the requestor believes
forms the basis for Reconsideration or Final Review when submitting its
corresponding appeal request. FMCSA will continue to implement
refinements to the DataQs program based on feedback received from
commenters and other stakeholders.
III. Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding
In consideration of the feedback received through the public
comments on the July 1, 2025 Federal Register notice, FMCSA is
announcing the following Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Funding.
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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More information on the Adjudicated Citations 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> States must participate in FMCSA program reviews of their
DataQs processes and procedures, as required for current existing MCSAP
programs.
<bullet> Each RDR closed, including at the various levels of appeal
(Reconsideration and Final Review), 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 including on how
to appeal the decision (RDR Reconsideration process) if prior to Final
Review decision.
<bullet> Procedural closures, such as ``Closed--No Requestor
Response'' or ``Closed--Insufficient Information,'' do not constitute a
substantive decision on the merits and are exempt from this detailed
reporting requirement. Requests that are ``Closed--Insufficient
Information'' must contain the reason for the State's action and
directions to the requestor to submit the required information.
<bullet> States may consult with their legal advisors during the
RDR adjudication process. States may consult with FMCSA during a
review, but FMCSA will not resolve factual or legal disputes, and may
only provide assistance with interpretation of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, Hazardous Materials Regulations, or related
policy.
Multi-Stage Review Process
States are required to incorporate a multi-stage review process for
RDRs.
[[Page 20567]]
The process for reviewing RDRs must include three stages of independent
review: Initial Review, Reconsideration, and Final Review. Review of
the RDR escalates from the DataQs analyst in the State MCSAP Lead
Agency to a responsible decision-maker or panel of subject matter
experts.
<bullet> Stage 1: Initial Review
[cir] The issuing officer or inspector cannot be the sole decision-
maker when the outcome of the RDR is ``Closed--No Data Correction
Made.''
<bullet> Stage 2: Reconsideration
[cir] The RDR Reconsideration must be reviewed and decided by a
person or panel with appropriate subject matter expertise within the
MCSAP Lead Agency.
[cir] The Reconsideration reviewer(s) must be separate and
independent from the person(s) who decided on the Initial Review.
[cir] The RDR Reconsideration must not be reviewed or decided by
the issuing officer or inspector, nor an immediate supervisor of the
issuing officer or inspector.
[cir] The Reconsideration reviewer(s) may request additional
information from the requestor, provided it is relevant and material to
the appeal. If the requestor provides the specifically requested
information, the RDR remains in Reconsideration. However, if the
requestor introduces entirely new, unrequested, and relevant
information or evidence that was not evaluated during the Initial
Review, the Reconsideration reviewer will not decide the appeal based
on the new evidence. Instead, the RDR will be routed back to the
Initial Review process to ensure a complete evaluation of the record.
<bullet> Stage 3: Final Review Process Requirements
[cir] 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) or an alternative process that ensures an
independent and unbiased review and decision. The review may be
delegated to a panel or outside party that provides a recommendation to
the decision-maker. However, the person(s) or panel reviewing or
deciding the Final Review must not be anyone involved in the review or
decision of the Initial RDR decision or RDR Reconsideration decision.
[cir] The Final Review decision-maker or panel may request
additional information relevant and material to the appeal. If the
requested information is provided, the RDR remains in a Final Review.
If entirely new, unrequested, and relevant evidence is introduced by
the requestor at this stage, the request must be routed back to the
Initial Review process.
[cir] The State's decision will be considered final by FMCSA after
the Final Review is completed. Any future or related requests
concerning the RDR will be heard at the discretion of the State.
Timeliness of the Request Process
<bullet> States must open an RDR within seven days of submission of
an Initial Review request.
<bullet> States must reach a decision on an RDR in Initial Review
and communicate it to the requestor within 21 days of submission.
<bullet> States must reach a decision on any Reconsideration Review
and communicate it to the requestor within 21 days of the request for
Reconsideration Review.
<bullet> States must reach a decision on any Final Review and
communicate it to the requestor within 45 days of the request for Final
Review.
<bullet> To ensure the timely resolution of disputes, requestors
must submit any request for a Reconsideration or Final Review within 30
days of the State issuing the decision in the previous stage.
<bullet> If a State returns a request at any stage for additional
information, the State's timeline to reach a decision is paused. The 14
days allotted for the requestor to respond do not count toward the
State's 21-day or 45-day review deadlines.
For all stages of review, if the State requests additional
information from the requestor, the requestor has 14 days to provide
the information. A State may only request additional information that
is relevant and material to the disposition of the review. These 14
days do not count towards the timeline for the State's review. If the
requestor does not respond, the State will close the request with the
status ``Closed--No Requestor Response'' unless a decision can be made
with the information already on the record. If a request is reopened
because the requestor provides the previously requested information, it
will not be escalated; instead, it will be reviewed at the level it was
closed, and the State will have the full allotted time for that
specific stage (21 days for Initial or Reconsideration Reviews and 45
days for Final Reviews) to complete this review. However, if entirely
new information or evidence (beyond what was requested) that is
relevant to the RDR is provided to the State, the RDR will be routed
back to the Initial Review process. States' timeliness for responding
to RDRs will be assessed based on the percentage of requests at each
review level that are addressed in the respective timelines.
Submission of Implementation Plans
State MCSAP Lead Agencies must submit a DataQs Implementation Plan
on how the agency will meet the objectives and elements of the General
Requirements, Multi-Stage Review Process, and Timeliness of Request
Process sections above. 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.
States must submit a DataQs Implementation Plan for approval by
FMCSA's Data Quality Program. Updates to the plan in subsequent years
will be submitted as part of the annual Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan
(CVSP) process. See Next Steps below for the timetable. 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 will be made
available to the public through DataQs (<a href="https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/">https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/</a>).
Burden of Proof Applicable to Initial RDRs, RDR Reconsideration
Requests, and Final Review Requests
<bullet> The burden of proof for all requests within DataQs
(Initial RDRs, Reconsideration Requests, and Final Review Requests)
rests entirely with the requestor. RDRs to remove or modify information
will be rejected without factual or legal justification explaining why
the information is incorrect or incomplete, along with the necessary
supporting documentation supporting the request when necessary.
<bullet> If an initial RDR or appeal is submitted without minimal
factual or legal justification, it is considered fundamentally
unsubstantiated. States have the discretion to procedurally reject
these requests (e.g., ``Closed--Insufficient Information'') without
conducting a full substantive review. Alternatively, the State may
return the RDR and ask for the missing information.
<bullet> If the State returns an RDR for relevant and material
information, the requestor has 14 days to provide it. If the requestor
fails to respond within the 14-day timeframe, the request will be
closed with the status ``Closed--No Requestor Response.'' However, if
the existing record contains enough information for the State to
adjudicate
[[Page 20568]]
the claim despite the missing information, the State must issue a
substantive decision on the merits (e.g., ``Closed--No Data Correction
Made'').
<bullet> If an RDR is closed due to a lack of response, even if the
State issued a substantive decision on the merits based on the existing
record, the request will be reopened if the requestor subsequently
provides the information that was previously requested.
[cir] The reopened request will not be escalated to the next stage
of appeal.
[cir] It will be reviewed again at the level it was closed, and the
State will be granted the full time allotted for that specific stage
(21 days for Initial or Reconsideration Reviews, and 45 days for Final
Reviews) to complete this renewed review.
<bullet> The appellate stages (Reconsideration and Final Review)
are meant to review the previous decision based on the existing record.
If a requestor introduces entirely new, unrequested, and relevant
information or evidence at any point (whether trying to reopen a closed
case or during an appeal) that was not evaluated during the prior
stage, the RDR will be routed back to the Initial Review process to
ensure a complete evaluation of the record.
<bullet> The appellate stages (Reconsideration and Final Review)
are primarily meant to review the previous decision based on the
existing record. However, appellate State reviewers retain the
authority to request additional information from the requestor,
provided it is relevant and material to the disposition of the review.
If the requestor provides the specifically requested information, the
review remains at the current appellate level. Conversely, if a
requestor introduces entirely new, unrequested and relevant information
or evidence during an appeal that was not requested by the reviewer and
was not evaluated during the prior stage, the RDR will be routed back
to the Initial Review process.
<bullet> For RDR Reconsideration Requests and Final Review
Requests, requestors must specifically address the State's previous
factual or legal basis for the decision and explain why they believe
that decision was incorrect. If an appeal is submitted that fails to
provide this substantive justification (e.g., merely stating
disagreement without addressing the prior analysis), the State has the
authority to summarily reject the request without further review.
IV. Next Steps
FMCSA thanks industry, State Partners, and the public for providing
feedback to continually improve the DataQs program. This input is
essential to FMCSA's efforts to elevate data quality standards, which
strive to improve roadway safety and instill greater confidence in fair
and understandable processes. FMCSA is dedicated to ensuring States
have support and collaboration in developing their DataQs
implementation plans. FMCSA will communicate with States on what is
expected to meet the revised requirements via correspondence to MCSAP
agencies and will conduct training and outreach in advance of
implementation. FMCSA proposes the following implementation schedule.
<bullet> April-May 2026: FMCSA begins training and outreach on the
new requirements for DataQs. Training will include templates and
guidance for creating and submitting DataQs Implementation Plans,
webinars, and office hours.
<bullet> 60 days after FRN publication: States submit draft DataQs
Implementation Plans to FMCSA for review and approval.
<bullet> 120 days after FRN publication: States finalize their
DataQs Implementation Plans, based on feedback from FMCSA. FMCSA
completes the implementation plan for relevant RDRs.
<bullet> 150 days after FRN publication: DataQs system release to
support the revised requirements. State implementation plans and new
DataQs MCSAP requirements go into effect.
Implementing these revised requirements is a joint effort between
FMCSA, State Partners, and industry to enhance data quality and support
better safety outcomes. By working together, we can improve the
effectiveness of the DataQs process and contribute to a safer
transportation system.
Derek Barrs,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-07429 Filed 4-15-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js" defer></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 16, 2026.
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.