FMCSA is following through on its promise of improving the integrity and accuracy of safety data for motor carrier or commercial driver challenges to inspection and crash determinations made and reviewed by States through FMCSA’s online DataQs data correction system.[1] States must afford a robust, multi-stage review process structured to provide transparency, uniformity and a degree of fundamental fairness to requestors challenging the correctness of inspection or crash reports through a DataQs challenge; referred to as a “Request for Data Review,” or “RDR.” FMCSA argues the changes to the DataQs review process are justified because accurate safety-data will strengthen its ability to make data-driven decisions that inform resource allocation, policy changes and initiatives to prevent large truck and motor-coach crashes and enhance safety on the nation’s roads.
DataQs is an online communication tool that helps put the public directly in touch with the organizations that provide FMCSA with information, such as inspection and crash reports involving carriers and commercial drivers.[2]
Why Carriers Should Pay Attention
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 challenges on crash data and 63,548 challenges concerning inspections and violations.
Successful motor carrier challenges should result in improved profiles for insurance underwriting and attracting and retaining shippers.
For drivers, a violation resulting in the issuance of a motor vehicle citation against the driver which was contested and resolved not guilty/dismissed through a due process proceeding in a State, local, or administrative tribunal (meaning, falling within the FMCSA’s “Adjudication Citations” criteria), should result in the adjudicated outcome being noted in an amended inspection report listing the violation, and excluding it from FMCSA’s Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) through a successful DataQs challenge.[3]
Why The Change
One of the many strings attached to a State’s receipt of Federal grant money through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), requires that the State establish and dedicate sufficient resources to ensure that the State collects accurate, complete, and timely motor carrier safety data and participate in a national motor carrier safety data correction system prescribed by FMCSA. DataQs is the Congressionally-mandated safety data correction system a State is required to participate.
Users of DataQs complained that DataQs challenges lacked transparency and uniformity among the various State agencies and law enforcement. Those users (characterized by FMCSA as a “requestor”), called on FMCSA to ensure DataQs provide requestors with an opportunity for an independent review, with consistently applied standards.
Changes to DataQs State Procedures Include:
The MCSAP Lead Agency responsible for receiving and considering a requestor’s DataQs challenge for each State must:
- Designate a point of contact for crash and inspection RDRs;
- Develop an FMCSA-approved “DataQs Implementation Plan”;
- Provide a multi-level appeal process for accepting and conducing 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 the crash.
- The appeals process has 3-tiers:
- First level: Initial RDR;
- Second level: RDR Reconsideration request; and
- Third level: Final RDR Review request.
The burden of proof remains with the requestor throughout. To remove or modify information that negatively impacts the requestor or others, the RDR must be supported by factual and/or legal justification of why the information is incorrect or incomplete and include necessary documentation supporting the request.
The issuing officer or inspector cannot be the sole decision-maker when the outcome of the RDR in the first level of review is: “Closed – No Data Correction Made.”
Should the requestor continue to be dissatisfied with the outcome and appeal to the second level of review (referred to as the RDR Reconsideration” review), the RDR Reconsideration must be reviewed and decided by a person or panel with appropriate subject matter expertise within the MCSAP Lead Agency. The RDR Reconsideration review reviewer(s) must be separate and independent from the person(s) who decided the Initial RDR.
For third level RDRs, the Final RDR Review request must be “escalated” for review by a responsible decision-maker identified by the State (such as a “Senior Leader in the MCSAP Office”) or an alternative process ensuring an independent and unbiased review and decision. The Final RDR Review must not be anyone involved in the review or decision of the Initial RDR or RDR Reconsideration.
Generally, absent a request for additional, information a decision is required within:
- 21 days for the Initial RDR,
- 21 days for the RDR Reconsideration, and
- 45 days for the Final RDR Review.
- The deadlines for a decision is measured in calendar days.
However, there is no “default judgment;” meaning a reversal if the State fails to decide the RDR by the deadline at any stage of the appeal process. FMCSA argues automatic action because of delay is not consistent with the intent of DataQs and FMCSA’s Data Quality Program. The decision must be based on the merits.
Determinations (regardless of the appeal stage), closed with: “Closed – No Data Correction Made” must:
- Adequately explain facts and analysis supporting the determination;
- Include a description or link to the State’s approved DataQs Implementation Plan;
- Identify the decision-maker by name and title;
- List the evidence reviewed;
- State the decision made;
- State the specific reasons for the determination; and
- Provide “next steps/directions” for more information including how to appeal.
If successful, FMCSA will notify the State to correct the safety data at the source. If the State cannot correct, FMCSA will update the safety data in its data systems, including Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) with updates flowing to downstream Federal systems such as PSP, SMS, Analysis & Information (A&I) and FMCSA Portal.[4]
State of DataQs in Massachusetts as of this writing
It appears Massachusetts is in position to pivot to the new DataQs procedures consistent with the timeline stated in FMCSA’s recent notice. The Massachusetts State Police is, and has been the Lead Agency responsible for DataQs.
The Unit Commander of the Massachusetts State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Section (MSP CVES) conducts DataQs on a weekly basis. RDRs are reviewed by the MSP Trooper that conducted the inspection. The Trooper’s immediate supervisor may be consulted as well. If the DataQs request results in closed – no change, the requestor can appeal, and the DataQs will be reviewed again by a three CVES member panel that are not involved with the inspection. If the requestor requests a further appeal, MSP currently consults FMCSA. MSP’s goal is to decide each DataQs RDR within ten (10) business days.[5]
State of DataQs in New Hampshire as of this writing
Base on public information, it appears New Hampshire may be required to make changes to its practices and procedures to bring its DataQs review into compliance with FMCSA’s new procedures so as not to jeopardize MCSAP grant funding in this area.
The Department of Safety (NHDOS) Division of State Police Troop G is the Lead Agency in New Hampshire. NH State Police Troop G is responsible for DataQs. Upon receiving an RDR, a MCSAP program assistant reviews the request. If the RDR requires a “complex response or research,” the program assistant forwards it to the MCSAP Seargent to handle, and are addressed in a timely manner consistent with the minimum review periods.[6]
New Hampshire provides no further information describing policies and procedures concerning DataQs challenges in its most recently filed Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (eCVSP) for fiscal year 2025.
Takeaway
FMCSA’s change to the DataQs program is perhaps an opportunity for motor carriers to shore up publicly facing safety data by making a DataQs challenge requesting corrections and expecting an impartial timely decision.
Critical to a successful outcome will be to recognize the salient facts material to the disputed inspection, violation or crash and knowledge of the applicable regulations and FMCSA policies interpreting the regulations.
As of this writing, FMCSA expects the changes States are required to put into place to ensure DataQs appeals are impartial and consistent take effect September 13, 2026.
Dated: Sudbury, MA
April 27, 2026
Andresen & Borovick, LLP
323 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
www.abmasslaw.com
Tel: (978) 443-6868
The foregoing is designed to provide general information based on a summary of legal principles for clients and friends of the firm. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Companies and individuals should consult with legal counsel before taking any action based on these principles to ensure their applicability in a given situation. The information presented here and on our website should not be construed to be legal advice or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright © 2026 Andresen & Borovick, LLP. All rights reserved.
[1] In Matter Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding, Dock. No. FMCSA-2023-0190-0283 (Notice), 91 Fed. Reg. 20561, 20566-68 (Apr. 16, 2026) (“2026 Notice”).
[2] The new DataQs appeal procedures and resulting decisions do not directly pertain to regulatory procedures external to DataQs. In Matter Appeal Process for Requests for Data Review, Dock. No. FMCSA-2023-0190-0001 (Notice, request for comment), 88 Fed. Reg. 63195, 63197 (Sep. 14, 2023). The new DataQs appeal procedures pertain to “State-owned data; not federally-owned data.” In Matter Proposed Revisions to DataQs Requirements for MCSAP Grant Funding, Dock. No. FMCSA-2023-0190-0059 (Notice; response to public comments and request for comments on new proposal), 90 Fed. Reg. 28860, 28863 (Jul. 1, 2025). FMCSA provides examples of regulatory procedures involving federally-owned data as petitions submitted to FMCSA’s Crash Preventability Determinations Program (CPDP), Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, (DACH), for changes to safety ratings or registration for operating authority. FMCSA does acknowledge, however, that there could be situations where a decision from a DataQs appeal could be used by the effected party in such external regulatory procedures filed with these other FMCSA offices. In Matter Appeal Process for Requests for Data Review, Dock. No. FMCSA-2023-0190-0001 (Notice, request for comment), 88 Fed. Reg. 63195, 63197 (Sep. 14, 2023).
[3] FMCSA DataQs Help Center FAQs “What is the impact of the appended citation result?” “If the violation is appended to reflect . . Not guilty/dismissed . . . [i]t will be excluded from the PSP report.” (last checked 4/22/26).
[4] Note, the above description of the new procedures is not intended to be exhaustive.
[5] Massachusetts Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (eCVSP), MCSAP Annual Update FY 2025, FMCSA approved Mar. 2, 2026, Part 2, Section 8 – State Safey Data Quality (SSDQ) last checked 4-22-26.
[6] New Hampshire Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (eCVSP), MCSAP Annual Update FY 2025, FMCSA approved Mar. 2, 2026, Part 1, Section 2 – Mission/Goal Statement, Part 2, Section 8 – State Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) last checked 4-22-26.