Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding

[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20561-20568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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, Scott.Valentine@dot.gov. 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

    •  States must establish points of contact for crash and 
inspection RDRs.
    •  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.
    •  States must follow FMCSA's policy related to Adjudicated 
Citations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ More information on the Adjudicated Citations Policy is 
available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/06/05/2014-13022/motor-carrier-management-information-system-mcmis-changes-to-improve-uniformity-in-the-treatment-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    •  States must participate in FMCSA program reviews of their 
DataQs processes and procedures, as required for current existing MCSAP 
programs.
    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  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.

•  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.''

•  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.

•  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

    •  States must open an RDR within seven days of submission of 
an Initial Review request.
    •  States must reach a decision on an RDR in Initial Review 
and communicate it to the requestor within 21 days of submission.
    •  States must reach a decision on any Reconsideration Review 
and communicate it to the requestor within 21 days of the request for 
Reconsideration Review.
    •  States must reach a decision on any Final Review and 
communicate it to the requestor within 45 days of the request for Final 
Review.
    •  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.
    •  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 (https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/).

Burden of Proof Applicable to Initial RDRs, RDR Reconsideration 
Requests, and Final Review Requests

    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  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'').
    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  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.
    •  60 days after FRN publication: States submit draft DataQs 
Implementation Plans to FMCSA for review and approval.
    •  120 days after FRN publication: States finalize their 
DataQs Implementation Plans, based on feedback from FMCSA. FMCSA 
completes the implementation plan for relevant RDRs.
    •  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