“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.”
That’s the definition published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in its proposed revisions to the system, published April 16, 2026 in the Federal Register. The revisions are the culmination of a process that began much earlier.
Commonsense Rules of the Road
“America’s truck drivers are essential to the strength of our economy, the security of our Nation, and the livelihoods of the American people.” That was the purpose expressed by President Donald Trump in his April 28, 2025, Executive Order, “Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers.”
That order is commonly known for beginning the process of tightening up English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards for CDL drivers and for initiating the review of non-domiciled CDL issuance. After those issues, in the fifth section of the executive order, another goal of was stated: “Within 60-days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Transportation shall identify and begin carrying out additional administrative, regulatory or enforcement actions to improve the working conditions of America’s truck drivers.”
In response, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy unveiled a package of initiatives on June 27, 2025, that included the statement, “The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) online tools are outdated and a pain to use.” A listed solution to that problem was “updating the DataQs system so it is more transparent.”
FMCSA’s Proposed Updates
Earlier this month, the FMCSA released a list of updates to the DataQs system. In an April 15 announcement, the agency stated that in 2024, DataQs received 8,314 requests on crash data, after publishing information on approximately 180,000 vehicles involved in crashes. The agency also received 63,548 requests concerning inspections and violations. Approximately 3 million inspections and 5 million violations are reported to the system each year.
This means requests for correction of data is received for only 4.6% of reported crashes, and requests are made for less than 1.3% of reported violations. No data was provided about who’s requesting correction of data. Often, it’s the carrier who doesn’t want a preventable crash or a violation listed on their CSA record. However, that same data may end up on the driver’s Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) record. Both are problems.
Drivers Deserve Due Process
Due process is a term heard often when criminal activity or deportation of illegal immigrants is discussed, but it applies to everyone.
CDL drivers have been excluded from due process for decades when it comes to crashes and violations. When a traffic citation is written — especially in conjunction with a Department of Transportation (DOT) inspection, there’s a very good chance it’ll end up in the DataQs system and appear on the driver’s PSP, regardless of the final disposition of the ticket.
Here’s a “for instance.”
Let’s say a commercial driver is pulled over for “following too closely” and is subjected to a DOT inspection while stopped. The inspection results — including the traffic violation — end up on the driver’s record.
Later, the charge of following too closely is dismissed, or perhaps the violation was a warning rather than an actual citation. The driver isn’t convicted of anything. There’s no fine, no punishment. The state that issued the CDL doesn’t add the violation to the driver’s motor vehicle report.
It’s done, right? Don’t count on it.
When the driver applies for another job, the prospective employer orders a PSP report, which hasn’t been updated to remove the traffic violation. Once the carrier reads “following too closely,” the driver’s application is denied. Tailgating is considered a “serious violation” by the FMCSA, as is speeding 15 mph over the posted limit and reckless driving. Insurance companies take a dim view of drivers with such violations on their records and carriers are reluctant to hire them.
The carrier, meanwhile, may have customers that review each carrier’s CSA record and refuse to ship with those who don’t meet their safety standards. If a carrier’s record contains safety violations, business can be lost.
So, while there’s no official “punishment” for a traffic charge that is dismissed, both driver and carrier can pay a price with a black mark on the record that impacts the ability of a driver to find employment or a carrier to conduct business.
Streamlining the Appeals Process
It’s nice that FMCSA has an appeal process. The driver or the carrier can submit a request through DataQs to have the record corrected. The FMCSA then contacts the state that initially recorded the violation.
The state and federal bureaucracies then work together to get the driver’s record corrected in a timely fashion, right? Not exactly.
The state may need to contact the court or the agency that initially submitted the inspection, another bureaucracy. Ultimately, the state informs the FMCSA of their decision to correct the record — or to deny the request — based on their investigation. Meanwhile, driver and carrier wait.
In its recent requested revisions, FMCSA received input on its proposal to require the state to decide whether to review the driver’s record within 21 days. Also discussed was the proposal that final decisions on queries must be returned within 45 days. However, if the state requests additional information from the driver or carrier who requested the review, there’s up to a 14-day delay for the information to be returned.
In the bureaucratic timeline, a three- to six-week time frame to resolve an issue is a short period. That’s not so for commercial drivers and motor carriers.
At the carrier, shipments are impacted for weeks on end. In the driver’s world, possibly while coping without a paycheck, the same period can mean hungry children and bankruptcy. And remember, this is the proposed fix to the current system that takes much longer.
Burden of Proof
One thing that was NOT included in the proposed revisions to DataQs was a proposal that no data can be placed in the records of the driver or carrier unless and until proof is also submitted. “Proof” means an actual conviction for violations, and preventability assessments for crashes.
Instead of making a convoluted appeal process for incorrect information more efficient, one might suggest developing a system that gets it right to begin with — and puts the rights of drivers and carriers who are negatively impacted ahead of the bureaucracy.
Cliff Abbott is an experienced commercial vehicle driver and owner-operator who still holds a CDL in his home state of Alabama. In nearly 40 years in trucking, he’s been an instructor and trainer and has managed safety and recruiting operations for several carriers. Having never lost his love of the road, Cliff has written a book and hundreds of songs and has been writing for The Trucker for more than a decade.
