The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration plans to reform the current DataQ process. First, however, the agency wants feedback from truckers and industry stakeholders.
In July, FMCSA published a notice with details about its proposal to improve its data review process, which is known as DataQ. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has long argued that the system, which is intended to provide an appeals process for truck drivers cited with a violation, is “broken.” OOIDA has been critical about the system’s lack of consistency and timeliness. The Association also has been vocal about conflicts of interest, stemming from appeals being decided by the same person who issued the initial violation.
As of Friday, Aug. 29, the agency had already received hundreds of comments regarding the DataQ process – but time is running out for truck drivers to help shape a final rule. FMCSA will accept comments through Tuesday, Sept. 2.
The DataQ 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 current existing MCSAP programs.
What are truckers saying?
Many of the comments focused on flaws in the current program.
“A warning must not be counted against the driver if it does not include a fine,” Lawrence Baty wrote. “All violations or warnings that are out of the driver’s control should never be charged to (the) driver’s record on this system. Every time a driver receives a violation, there should be a form given to (the) driver that has the website and instructions on how to dispute the warnings.”
Andre De La Rosa relayed concerns about conflict of interest.
“There is a fundamental conflict of interest embedded in the current DataQ review process,” De La Rosa wrote. “In California, challenges are reviewed by the same agency that issued the original violation. The same structural problem exists at FMCSA, where federal inspections are reviewed internally by the same inspector or direct colleagues. Unsurprisingly, these challenges are almost never granted, destroying any appearance of impartiality or fair oversight.”
How to comment
FMCSA will accept comments on its DataQ proposal through Tuesday, Sept. 2. To make a comment, click here or go to the Regulations.gov website and enter Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0190. LL
Credit: Source link
