The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports a proposal to reform FMCSA’s “broken” DataQ system. However, the Association also offered the agency some feedback to ensure that reviews provide “fairness and due process for all parties involved.”
OOIDA has long argued that the system, which is intended to provide an appeal process for truck drivers cited with a violation, is flawed. The trade association representing small-business truckers contends that the current DataQ process lacks timeliness, consistency and fairness. A common complaint is that the appeal is determined by the same person or agency that issued the initial violation.
In July, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a notice with details about its proposal to improve its data review process, which is known as DataQ. FMCSA gave the public 60 days to submit comments on the proposal.
OOIDA submitted its comments on Tuesday, Sept. 2.
The proposal
FMCSA’s proposal would require states to incorporate a multi-level review process for Request for Data Reviews, escalating the review from the DataQ analyst in the state Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program lead agency to a responsible decision-maker or panel of subject matter experts. Each state would be required to submit a DataQ Implementation Plan to FMCSA detailing how its agency would meet FMCSA’s requirements for each stage of the data review process.
The notice listed several general requirements:
- States must establish points of contact for crash and inspection requests for data reviews.
- States must accept and conduct a good-faith review of all inspection-related requests for data reviews that are submitted within three years from the date of inspection and, for all crash-related requests, for five years from the date of a crash.
- States must follow FMCSA’s policy related to adjudicated citations.
- State MCSAP Lead Agencies must submit a DataQ Implementation Plan for how the agency would meet the objectives and requirements of the initial review, reconsideration review and final review processes. In addition, the plan must outline how the agency would address any existing backlog of requests for reviews and what steps it would take to prevent a potential backlog.
- States must submit an Initial DataQ Implementation Plan that must be approved by FMCSA. Updates to the plan must be submitted as part of the annual Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan process.
- States must participate in FMCSA program reviews of their DataQ processes and procedures, as required for existing MCSAP programs.
OOIDA’s comments
In its comments, OOIDA offered support for the proposal but also made some suggestions for improvement.
“OOIDA supports the revised proposal that requires states to incorporate a multi-level review process, establishes a practical time period for adjudicating challenges and improves DataQ impartiality,” the Association wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “Ideally, FMCSA should clarify a few steps in the updated process and better address the reasoning for preserving pending (request for data review) data in public view while the challenge is active.”
The Association previously suggested that FMCSA remove all data from public view until a final determination has been made. That request was denied.
“We do question FMCSA’s decision to reject OOIDA’s recommendation that no data pursuant to an active DataQ challenge should be posted in any agency database until a final adjudication has been made,” Spencer wrote. “… This decision unfairly harms small fleets and independent truckers who are more penalized by an erroneous violation than larger fleets. Furthermore, smaller carriers are less likely to have the administrative bandwidth to file frivolous (request for data reviews) and manipulate the DataQ process.”
As an alternative, OOIDA suggested each motor carrier/owner-operator and, separately, all drivers without their own operating authority would be permitted to select one request for data review every six months that would not detrimentally impact any safety rating until the request is fully adjudicated.
“FMCSA should also consider other alternatives that would ensure small trucking businesses are not sidelined when challenging violations, especially administrative or clerical errors due to no fault of their own,” Spencer wrote.
According to the Regulations.gov website, FMCSA received 223 comments on the proposal.
The American Trucking Associations said it broadly supports establishing clear timelines, independent reviews and greater consistency across states. However, ATA also told the agency that it must ensure safeguards are in place “to prevent frivolous or unsupported submissions.”
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance said it applauds FMCSA for engaging with the commercial motor vehicle community to identify ways to improve the DataQ system. However, CVSA opposed FMCSA’s recommendation to allow the requestor 14 days to respond to requests for additional information from the jurisdiction in the second round of review.
“CVSA’s member jurisdictions strongly oppose the introduction of any new information in the second or third round of an (request for data review),” the group wrote. “If additional information is included in the (request for data review) reconsideration request by the requestor, the (request for data review) should immediately be referred back to the first round for review, based on the additional information.”
FMCSA will review all of the comments before determining whether to move forward with a final rule. LL
Credit: Source link
