Revised DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding

Content

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

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

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,

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

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

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)

• 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:
  ○ Description of or link to the State's approved DataQs Implementation Plan;

○ Decision-maker (name and title);

○ List of evidence reviewed;

○ Decision;

○ Specific reason(s) for decision; and

○ 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.

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

○ 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

○ The RDR Reconsideration must be reviewed and decided by a person or panel with appropriate subject matter expertise within
the MCSAP Lead Agency.

○ The Reconsideration reviewer(s) must be separate and independent from the person(s) who decided on the Initial Review.

○ 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.

○ 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

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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

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. ○ The reopened request will not be escalated to the next stage of appeal.

○ 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

Footnotes

(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.

Download File

Download