Appeal Process for Requests for Data Review, 63195-63199 [2023-19904]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices
Willets Point. After preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
the FAA signed a ROD approving the
Project on July 20, 2021.
Following the issuance of the ROD,
New York Governor Kathy Hochul
directed the Port Authority to review
alternative mass transit options to the
Airport. In November 2021, per the
governor’s request, the Port Authority
assembled a 3-person panel to oversee
the study and provide recommendations
based on the study’s results.
In March 2023, the Port Authority
released the ‘‘Options for Mass Transit
Solutions to LGA’’ report, which
included the panel’s independent
analysis of 14 different mass transit
options to LGA. The panel
recommended that the Port Authority
proceed with implementing
improvements to the existing
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) Q70 LaGuardia Link bus service
and constructing a new non-stop airport
shuttle service from Ditmars Boulevard,
the terminus of the N/W subway line in
Astoria, Queens. Due to foreseeable
construction and cost constraints, the
expert panel recommended that the Port
Authority focus on improving bus
services at LGA in the near-term to
provide more efficient transit
capabilities, and to focus on
implementing the shuttle service in the
long-term. The Port Authority indicates
that improved bus service is projected to
serve approximately 5 million
passengers annually and cost an
estimated $500 million compared to
costs ranging from $2.4 billion to $6.2
billion for alternative light rail options
(Port Authority Board of Commissioners
Approves $30 Million for Planning and
Preliminary Design to Improve Mass
Transit Access to LaGuardia Airport,
https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/
en/press-room/press-release-archives/
2022-press-releases1/port-authorityboard-of-commissioners-approves--30million-for-p.html). On June 22, 2023,
the Port Authority Board of
Commissioners approved $30 million in
funding to plan and develop
preliminary designs for the bus service
improvements at LGA as recommended
by the panel. On July 20, 2023, the Port
Authority notified the FAA of its intent
to officially abandon the Project as
approved by the FAA’s ROD in favor of
pursuing the recommended bus service
improvements from the ‘‘Options for
Mass Transit Solutions to LGA’’ report.
Based on consideration of this
substantial new information and the
changed circumstances concerning the
Port Authority’s planned access
improvements at LGA as discussed
above, the July 2021 ROD for the LGA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Sep 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
Access Improvement Project has been
withdrawn. Accordingly, all approvals
for FAA actions within the ROD are also
withdrawn. The Port Authority must
reinitiate any requests for FAA review
and approval as necessary for all aspects
of the Project contained within the nowwithdrawn ROD should it wish to
proceed with any component of the
Project, in part or as a whole.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Brooks, Environmental Program
Manager, Eastern Regional Office, AEA–
610, Federal Aviation Administration, 1
Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434.
Telephone: 718–553–2511.
Issued in Jamaica, New York, September 8,
2023.
Evelyn Martinez,
Manager, New York Airports District Office,
Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 2023–19850 Filed 9–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2023–0190]
Appeal Process for Requests for Data
Review
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
FMCSA proposes the
development and implementation of a
Federal appeals process for Requests for
Data Review (RDRs) submitted to the
Agency through its DataQs system.
DataQs is the online system for motor
carriers, commercial motor vehicle
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 requester believes is incomplete or
incorrect. The proposed review process
would provide users with an
opportunity to have their requests
reviewed by FMCSA after the request
has been reviewed and denied after
reconsideration by the State agency.
FMCSA would include requirements for
ensuring an independent review of all
requests. The outcome of the FMCSA
review would be deemed final. FMCSA
requests public comments on the
proposed process.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number FMCSA–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63195
2023–0190 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
FMCSA-2023-0190/document. Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S.
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building, Ground Floor, Washington,
DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets
Operations, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building, Ground
Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366–
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Valentine, Data Quality Program
Manager, Analysis Division, Office of
Analysis, Research and Technology,
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:
FMCSA organizes this notice as
follows:
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy
II. Abbreviations
IV. Background
A. Overview of FMCSA Data Systems
B. DataQs
C. Current Process for Review of Requests
in DataQs
D. The Call for an Independent Appeal
Process
V. Proposal for FMCSA Appeal Process
A. Proposed Process and Acceptance
Criteria
VI. Independent Review for RDR
Reconsiderations
VII. Comments Sought
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate
by submitting comments and related
materials.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA–2023–0190), indicate
the specific section of this document to
which your comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online or by fax,
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
63196
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices
mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your
name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body
of your document so FMCSA can
contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
FMCSA-2023-0190/document, click on
this notice, click ‘‘Comment,’’ and type
your comment into the text box on the
following screen.
If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing.
FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the
comment period.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 United States Code (U.S.C.)
552, CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive
to the notice contain commercial or
financial information that is customarily
treated as private, that you actually treat
as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to the notice, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission that constitutes
CBI as ‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate it contains
proprietary information. FMCSA will
treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they
will not be placed in the public docket
of the notice. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin,
Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division,
Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590–0001 or via email at
brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. You do not
need to send a duplicate hard copy of
your electronic CBI submissions to
FMCSA headquarters. Any comments
FMCSA receives not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this notice.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view any documents mentioned as
being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
FMCSA-2023-0190/document and
choose the document to review. To view
comments, click this notice, then click
‘‘Browse Comments.’’ If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations on the ground floor of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Sep 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590–
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or
(202) 366–9826 before visiting Dockets
Operations.
C. Privacy
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its regulatory process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov. As described in
the System of Records Notices, DOT/
ALL 14—Federal Docket Management
System, which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/
individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-notices, the comments are
searchable by the name of the submitter.
II. Abbreviations
A&I Analysis and Information Online
CBI Confidential Business Information
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
DOT Department of Transportation
ELD Electronic Logging Device
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Regulations
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
FY Fiscal Year
HOS Hours of Service
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management
Information System
MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PSP Pre-Employment Screening Program
RDR Request for Data Review
SMS Safety Measurement System
U.S.C. United States Code
IV. Background
A. Overview of FMCSA Data Systems
The foundation of FMCSA’s datadriven safety activities is the Motor
Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS). MCMIS is a computerized
system in which FMCSA maintains a
record of the safety performance of
motor carriers and hazardous materials
shippers that are subject to Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations. MCMIS contains crash,
registration, inspection, investigation,
and enforcement information. FMCSA is
committed to ensuring the integrity of
State and Federally reported safety data
in MCMIS.
States collect and submit crash and
inspection data, including violations
documented during such inspections,
into State data systems. The State data
systems transmit the State-reported
crash and inspection data into MCMIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The MCMIS data is propagated to
other FMCSA data systems, including,
but not limited to, the Pre-Employment
Screening Program (PSP), the Safety
Measurement System (SMS), and
Analysis and Information Online (A&I).
These data systems provide enforcement
personnel, industry, and the public with
information on the safety performance
of motor carriers and drivers.
B. DataQs
DataQs is the online system for
drivers, motor carriers, Federal and
State agencies, and others to request and
track a review of MCMIS data they
believe to be incomplete or incorrect.
The DataQs system is available to the
public at https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov.
The DataQs system provides users an
opportunity to seek and obtain
correction of information maintained
and disseminated by FMCSA. It enables
all users to improve the accuracy of
FMCSA’s data-driven safety systems
that help prevent crashes, injuries, and
fatalities related to CMVs.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2001
Consolidated Appropriations Act,
section 515, Public Law 106–554,
required the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to develop standards for
Federal agency data. The OMB
Guidelines required Federal agencies to
take certain steps to ensure the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of data
that the agencies publicly disseminate.
The agencies were also required to
provide ‘‘administrative mechanisms’’
for affected persons to seek and obtain
correction of data.
The OMB Guidelines on agencies’
required mechanisms for correction of
data is stated, in relevant part, as
follows:
3. To facilitate public review, agencies
shall establish administrative mechanisms
allowing affected persons to seek and obtain,
where appropriate, timely correction of
information maintained and disseminated by
the agency that does not comply with OMB
or agency guidelines. These administrative
mechanisms shall be flexible, appropriate to
the nature and timeliness of the disseminated
information and incorporated into agency
information resources management and
administrative practices.
i. Agencies shall specify appropriate time
periods for agency decisions on whether and
how to correct the information. Agencies
shall notify the affected persons of the
corrections made.
ii. If the person who requested the
correction does not agree with the agency’s
decision (including the corrective action, if
any), the person may file for reconsideration
within the agency. The agency shall establish
an administrative appeal process to review
the agency’s initial decision, and specify
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices
appropriate time limits in which to resolve
such requests for reconsideration.1
FMCSA adopted DataQs in response to
this legislation and the OMB
Guidelines.
As noted, pursuant to 49 CFR
350.201(s), one condition for
participation in the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP) 2 is that a
State establish a program to ensure that
accurate and timely motor carrier safety
data are collected and reported, and that
the State participates in a national
motor carrier safety data correction
system prescribed by FMCSA. DataQs is
that national motor carrier data
correction system. Currently, States are
responsible for reviewing and resolving
all RDRs within DataQs that pertain to
the safety data collected and reported in
MCMIS by the State.
C. Current Process for Review of
Requests in DataQs
DataQs system users may submit an
RDR for the review of data within an
FMCSA system and, if applicable, may
provide supporting documentation.
Based on the type of request, the RDR
is routed to the appropriate DataQs
program office. This program office can
be a State agency, FMCSA field office,
or FMCSA headquarters. Most RDRs are
assigned to the State MCSAP agency for
review since that agency most often
uploaded the data to MCMIS.
The program office is responsible for
investigating the request,
communication with the requestor, if
needed, and deciding whether a data
correction is warranted. If a State agency
is the assigned program office, and a
data correction is warranted, the
program office updates the record
locally and uploads corrected data to
MCMIS. Program offices are also
responsible for updating DataQs with
the review results and for notifying the
requestor of the outcome. FMCSA
provides State DataQs analysts with best
practices and guidance for addressing
RDRs in the DataQs Analyst Guide.3
After a decision is made on the initial
review of the RDR, the requestor may
request that the RDR be reviewed again
(RDR Reconsideration). This RDR
Reconsideration may be routed to the
same program office as the initial review
or follow a different process. State
approaches for handling RDR
Reconsideration requests vary. Some
States address RDR Reconsideration
requests within the program office. If
the reviewer performing the RDR
Reconsideration review is a State
agency, they may consult with FMCSA
for a recommendation. Some States have
implemented review councils or
committees. These groups are
comprised of members with CMV
experience from the State, and at times
industry, that can perform an
independent review of the request.
Decisions on the RDR Reconsiderations
are final.
D. The Call for an Independent Appeal
Process
Stakeholders from industry, CMV
drivers, and the public have expressed
concerns regarding the transparency and
uniformity of addressing RDRs, and
specifically, RDR Reconsiderations.
Stakeholders note that program offices
do not have a uniform process for initial
RDR reviews or for handling RDR
Reconsiderations. They have also noted
concern that RDR Reconsiderations are,
in many instances, reviewed and
decided by the same reviewer as the
initial request. Users are calling on
FMCSA to ensure an opportunity for an
independent review, with consistently
applied standards, for data correction
requests.
V. Proposal for FMCSA Appeal Process
A. Proposed Process and Acceptance
Criteria
FMCSA proposes the development
and implementation of an independent
63197
FMCSA appeal process for RDRs. The
Agency expects to use the DataQs
system to accept, track, and respond to
requests for FMCSA appeal review. For
this process, FMCSA proposes that
DataQs users would be able to initiate
a request for an FMCSA appeal but only
after the RDR has been denied through
both the initial review and the RDR
Reconsideration processes. All
information and documents provided to
FMCSA would be contained in the
DataQs RDR itself. Neither the requestor
nor the program office may submit new
facts or evidence at the time of this third
and final appeal request or during its
review.
The Agency proposes to limit RDRs
accepted for FMCSA appeal to requests
that pertain to significant matters of
legal interpretation or implementation
of enforcement policies or regulations.
Requests involving mere factual dispute
between parties would not ordinarily be
accepted for review through the FMCSA
appeal process. Additionally, RDRs
submitted to the Crash Preventability
Determination Program and petitions to
the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse,
would not be eligible for an FMCSA
appeal. The proposed appeal process
would not directly pertain to regulatory
procedures external to DataQs, such as
requests for safety rating upgrades, or
appeals of registration rejections,
although decisions from the appeals
subsequently could be used by the
affected party in such external
procedures. If an RDR appeal is
accepted by FMCSA, the determination
made as a result of the appeal would be
final.
Table 1 below contains examples of
RDRs that might meet the proposed
acceptance criteria for an FMCSA
appeal.4
TABLE 1—EXAMPLE REQUESTS POSSIBLY ACCEPTABLE FOR FMCSA APPEAL
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
1.
RDR type and scenario
Reason for FMCSA appeal acceptance
Crash—Not Reportable ........................................................................
A CMV was involved in a crash where the other driver left the
scene. The other driver was apprehended a short time later and
the vehicle had to be towed due to damage sustained during the
crash with the CMV.
Interpretation—Crash Reportability Definition.
Determine whether the crash met FMCSA’s definition for reportability of a crash.
1 See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the
Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67
FR 8,452 (Feb. 22, 2002).
2 MCSAP is a Federal grant program that provides
financial assistance to States to reduce the number
and severity of crashes and hazardous materials
incidents involving CMVs. The goal of MCSAP is
to reduce CMV-involved crashes, fatalities, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Sep 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective
CMV safety programs. MCSAP is FMCSA’s largest
grant program that supports State and local law
enforcement agencies to utilize over 12,000
enforcement officers to increase enforcement and
safety activities nationwide.
3 See https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataQs/Data/
Guide/DataQs_Users_Guide_and_Best_Practices_
Manual.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4 The examples cited in Tables 1 and 2 are for
illustration purposes only. This notice does not
reflect a formal decision by FMCSA on whether
specific requests for Agency intervention, to the
extent already submitted informally, will or will not
be accepted for review on appeal.
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
63198
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 1—EXAMPLE REQUESTS POSSIBLY ACCEPTABLE FOR FMCSA APPEAL—Continued
2.
3.
4.
RDR type and scenario
Reason for FMCSA appeal acceptance
Inspection—Incorrect Violation ............................................................
The driver was using a portable electronic logging device (ELD),
mounted to the center console. The driver was cited for a violation
during an inspection because the ELD was not in view of the driver while operating the CMV. The driver claims the violation is in
error because ‘‘visible’’ means not hidden and the driver only
needs to access it when changing duty statuses.
Inspection—Incorrect Violation ............................................................
A driver was cited roadside with violating HOS regulations after
claiming to be operating under a Regional Emergency Declaration
in support of hurricane relief efforts. The State contended the
commodity being transported was not part of the relief efforts.
Inspection—Citation Associated with a Violation ................................
The driver received a speeding violation, and an associated citation,
during a traffic enforcement inspection. The citation was dismissed in court and the driver paid court costs. The State contends that the court costs were punitive and the equivalent of a
conviction.
Interpretation—ELD and Hours of Service (HOS) Final Rule.
Interpret the ELD and HOS Supporting Documents Final Rule,
§ 395.22 (g) ‘‘Portable ELDs. If a driver uses a portable ELD, the
motor carrier shall ensure that the ELD is mounted in a fixed position during the operation of the commercial motor vehicle and visible to the driver when the driver is seated in the normal driving
position.’’
Interpretation—National Emergency Declaration.
Assess whether the State correctly applied the waiver in response
to the declared hurricane emergency.
Table 2 below contains examples of
RDRs that would not meet the proposed
Interpretation—Adjudicated Citations Policy.
Determine the appropriate outcome for a citation dismissed with
court costs based on the MCMIS Changes to Improve Uniformity
in the Treatment of Inspection Violation Data (Adjudicated Citations Policy).
acceptance criteria for an FMCSA
appeal.
TABLE 2—EXAMPLE REQUESTS LIKELY NOT ACCEPTED FOR FMCSA APPEAL
1.
2.
3.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
4.
RDR type and scenario
Reason for FMCSA appeal rejection
Crash—Not Reportable ........................................................................
A motor carrier provides insurance documents stating that they were
found ‘‘not at fault’’ in the crash and wants the crash removed as
not reportable.
Inspection—Incorrect Violation ............................................................
A CMV driver received a violation during an inspection for driving
during off-duty hours. The submitter claims that the ELD was malfunctioning, and the inspector was not provided accurate information. The request did not include supporting evidence.
Inspection—Incorrect Violation ............................................................
The driver received a violation for following too closely during a traffic enforcement inspection. Submitter claims that the driver was
not in violation of the traffic code. The request did not include
supporting evidence.
Inspection—Incorrect Violation ............................................................
The driver received an HOS violation because the log did not properly reflect driving hours. The submitter states that the driver has
been retrained in maintaining logs and is requesting the violation
be removed.
Based on Insurance Documents—Not Crash Reportability Definition.
FMCSA crash data is based on vehicle involvement, and fault is not
a consideration in the reportability of a crash.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Sep 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Disputes Facts—Not Based on ELD Regulations or Policy.
The request disputes facts regarding whether the ELD was working
correctly at the time of the inspection. It also does not require an
interpretation of regulation or policy.
Opposing Account—Not Based on Regulations.
The request presents an opposing account of the inspection without
concrete evidence. It also does not question the interpretation of
the regulation.
Leniency Request—Not Based on HOS Regulations.
The requestor is seeking a data change based on purported corrective action and does not question the interpretation of the regulation.
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices
The outcome of the FMCSA appeal
generally will include a clarification of
the relevant regulation or policy as
applied in such circumstances, and a
determination whether correction of the
data is warranted. When an FMCSA
appeal results in a clarification that
precipitates the need for a change to
State-reported data, FMCSA proposes to
notify the State via DataQs to ensure
that the safety data is updated at the
source. Some States may not be able to
update their source data, and in these
cases, FMCSA proposes to update the
data in its MCMIS system. Changing
data in MCMIS would not update State
source systems, but the changes would
flow to downstream Federal systems
such as PSP, SMS, A&I, and the FMCSA
Portal.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
VI. Independent Review for State RDR
Reconsiderations
In addition to proposing the
establishment of an FMCSA appeals
process, the Agency wishes to address
stakeholder concerns about independent
reviews for all RDRs, not just those
related to regulations, policy, or
standards. As such, FMCSA proposes to
issue new requirements for the review
of RDR Reconsiderations to program
offices. These proposed guidelines may
include requirements to ensure and
certify that each reconsideration request
is addressed by a different reviewer than
the person who performed the initial
review of the RDR.
VII. Comments Sought
FMCSA seeks comments on the
proposals described above. FMCSA
seeks comments on the following
specific questions.
1. Should FMCSA appeals be
considered for RDRs that are not related
to the interpretation or understanding of
regulations, policy, or standards.
2. If so, what are some examples of
RDRs that should be reviewed in an
appeal?
3. As mentioned above, some States
and program offices have created review
boards and panels with processes for
managing requests or referrals that occur
during the initial RDR review or an RDR
Reconsideration. How would the
addition of the FMCSA appeal impact
these review boards and their processes?
4. What burdens, if any, will States
face when updating their source data
when notified in DataQs of an FMCSA
appeal result that requires a data
change?
a. If a State declined to change the
violation in its data systems as a result
of a decision in an FMCSA appeal, or
was unable to, what would be the
impact be of having FMCSA update the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:47 Sep 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
data in MCMIS directly while the State
retained the original data in the its
source systems?
5. One purpose of the FMCSA review
is to provide clarity on significant
regulatory or policy issues. FMCSA
appeals may identify instances where
this clarity could be helpful for future
RDRs and RDR Reconsiderations. Are
there recommended practices for
disseminating appeal outcomes?
6. Are there any factors that FMCSA
should consider relating to its proposed
requirement for a separate reviewer,
independent from the initial reviewer,
for program office review for all RDR
Reconsiderations?
Once comments are reviewed and any
needed program changes are made, the
Agency will respond to comments
received to this notice and announce the
start of the updated program in the
Federal Register, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023–19904 Filed 9–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Extension of Information
Collection Request Submitted for
Public Comment; Comment Request
Concerning Information Reporting for
Form 8824
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Internal Revenue Service,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
invites the public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning Form
8824, Like-Kind Exchanges.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before November 13,
2023 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Andre´s Garcia, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or
by email to pra.comments@irs.gov.
Please include, ‘‘OMB Number: 1545–
1190—Public Comment Request Notice’’
in the Subject line.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63199
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala,
at (202) 317–5746, at Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or
through the internet at
RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Like-Kind Exchanges.
OMB Number: 1545–1190.
Form Project Number: Form 8824.
Abstract: Section 1031 of the Internal
Revenue Code allows for the nonrecognition of gain or loss on the
exchange of business or investment
property. Section 1043 allows for the
non-recognition of gain from
dispositions made by certain members
of the executive branch of the Federal
government because of a conflict of
interest. Form 8824 provides taxpayers
with an easy method of determining
whether a transaction qualifies for likekind exchange treatment, the gain or
loss, if any recognized because of the
exchange, and the basis in the new
property received in the exchange.
Current Actions: Substantial changes
are being made to the form and
instructions, based on Regulations
sections 1.1031(a)–1(a)(3) and
1.1031(a)–3 (and IRC 1031 as updated
by Pub. L. 115–97 (TCJA), section
13303). These rules limit the property
eligible for like-kind exchanges. Under
these rules, only property meeting the
definition of real property in IRC 1031
is like-kind property for purposes of
like-kind exchanges.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households, business or other for-profit
organization, and not-for-profit
institution.
Estimated Number of Responses:
137,547.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 17
hrs., 11 min.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 2,364,433.
The following paragraph applies to all
the collections of information covered
by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a
collection of information must be
retained if their contents may become
material in the administration of any
internal revenue law. Generally, tax
returns and tax return information are
confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C.
6103.
E:\FR\FM\14SEN1.SGM
14SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63195-63199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0190]
Appeal Process for Requests for Data Review
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes the development and implementation of a Federal
appeals process for Requests for Data Review (RDRs) submitted to the
Agency through its DataQs system. DataQs is the online system for motor
carriers, commercial motor vehicle 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 requester believes is
incomplete or incorrect. The proposed review process would provide
users with an opportunity to have their requests reviewed by FMCSA
after the request has been reviewed and denied after reconsideration by
the State agency. FMCSA would include requirements for ensuring an
independent review of all requests. The outcome of the FMCSA review
would be deemed final. FMCSA requests public comments on the proposed
process.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-
2023-0190 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S. DOT,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Valentine, Data Quality Program
Manager, Analysis Division, Office of Analysis, Research and
Technology, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, (202) 366-4869, [email protected]. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FMCSA organizes this notice as follows:
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy
II. Abbreviations
IV. Background
A. Overview of FMCSA Data Systems
B. DataQs
C. Current Process for Review of Requests in DataQs
D. The Call for an Independent Appeal Process
V. Proposal for FMCSA Appeal Process
A. Proposed Process and Acceptance Criteria
VI. Independent Review for RDR Reconsiderations
VII. Comments Sought
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2023-0190), indicate the specific section of this
document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax,
[[Page 63196]]
mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can
contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document, click on this notice, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552, CBI is
exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the
notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily
treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is
relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your
submission that constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it contains
proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via
email at [email protected]. You do not need to send a duplicate
hard copy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any
comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this notice.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0190/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice,
then click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting
Dockets Operations.
C. Privacy
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the System
of Records Notices, DOT/ALL 14--Federal Docket Management System, which
can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the
name of the submitter.
II. Abbreviations
A&I Analysis and Information Online
CBI Confidential Business Information
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
DOT Department of Transportation
ELD Electronic Logging Device
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Regulations
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
FY Fiscal Year
HOS Hours of Service
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System
MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PSP Pre-Employment Screening Program
RDR Request for Data Review
SMS Safety Measurement System
U.S.C. United States Code
IV. Background
A. Overview of FMCSA Data Systems
The foundation of FMCSA's data-driven safety activities is the
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). MCMIS is a
computerized system in which FMCSA maintains a record of the safety
performance of motor carriers and hazardous materials shippers that are
subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and the
Hazardous Materials Regulations. MCMIS contains crash, registration,
inspection, investigation, and enforcement information. FMCSA is
committed to ensuring the integrity of State and Federally reported
safety data in MCMIS.
States collect and submit crash and inspection data, including
violations documented during such inspections, into State data systems.
The State data systems transmit the State-reported crash and inspection
data into MCMIS.
The MCMIS data is propagated to other FMCSA data systems,
including, but not limited to, the Pre-Employment Screening Program
(PSP), the Safety Measurement System (SMS), and Analysis and
Information Online (A&I). These data systems provide enforcement
personnel, industry, and the public with information on the safety
performance of motor carriers and drivers.
B. DataQs
DataQs is the online system for drivers, motor carriers, Federal
and State agencies, and others to request and track a review of MCMIS
data they believe to be incomplete or incorrect. The DataQs system is
available to the public at https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov. The DataQs
system provides users an opportunity to seek and obtain correction of
information maintained and disseminated by FMCSA. It enables all users
to improve the accuracy of FMCSA's data-driven safety systems that help
prevent crashes, injuries, and fatalities related to CMVs.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act, section
515, Public Law 106-554, required the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to develop standards for Federal agency data. The OMB Guidelines
required Federal agencies to take certain steps to ensure the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of data that the agencies publicly
disseminate. The agencies were also required to provide
``administrative mechanisms'' for affected persons to seek and obtain
correction of data.
The OMB Guidelines on agencies' required mechanisms for correction
of data is stated, in relevant part, as follows:
3. To facilitate public review, agencies shall establish
administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and
obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information
maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with
OMB or agency guidelines. These administrative mechanisms shall be
flexible, appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the
disseminated information and incorporated into agency information
resources management and administrative practices.
i. Agencies shall specify appropriate time periods for agency
decisions on whether and how to correct the information. Agencies
shall notify the affected persons of the corrections made.
ii. If the person who requested the correction does not agree
with the agency's decision (including the corrective action, if
any), the person may file for reconsideration within the agency. The
agency shall establish an administrative appeal process to review
the agency's initial decision, and specify
[[Page 63197]]
appropriate time limits in which to resolve such requests for
reconsideration.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
Federal Agencies, 67 FR 8,452 (Feb. 22, 2002).
FMCSA adopted DataQs in response to this legislation and the OMB
Guidelines.
As noted, pursuant to 49 CFR 350.201(s), one condition for
participation in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)
\2\ is that a State establish a program to ensure that accurate and
timely motor carrier safety data are collected and reported, and that
the State participates in a national motor carrier safety data
correction system prescribed by FMCSA. DataQs is that national motor
carrier data correction system. Currently, States are responsible for
reviewing and resolving all RDRs within DataQs that pertain to the
safety data collected and reported in MCMIS by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MCSAP is a Federal grant program that provides financial
assistance to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes
and hazardous materials incidents involving CMVs. The goal of MCSAP
is to reduce CMV-involved crashes, fatalities, and injuries through
consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety programs. MCSAP is
FMCSA's largest grant program that supports State and local law
enforcement agencies to utilize over 12,000 enforcement officers to
increase enforcement and safety activities nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Current Process for Review of Requests in DataQs
DataQs system users may submit an RDR for the review of data within
an FMCSA system and, if applicable, may provide supporting
documentation. Based on the type of request, the RDR is routed to the
appropriate DataQs program office. This program office can be a State
agency, FMCSA field office, or FMCSA headquarters. Most RDRs are
assigned to the State MCSAP agency for review since that agency most
often uploaded the data to MCMIS.
The program office is responsible for investigating the request,
communication with the requestor, if needed, and deciding whether a
data correction is warranted. If a State agency is the assigned program
office, and a data correction is warranted, the program office updates
the record locally and uploads corrected data to MCMIS. Program offices
are also responsible for updating DataQs with the review results and
for notifying the requestor of the outcome. FMCSA provides State DataQs
analysts with best practices and guidance for addressing RDRs in the
DataQs Analyst Guide.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataQs/Data/Guide/DataQs_Users_Guide_and_Best_Practices_Manual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a decision is made on the initial review of the RDR, the
requestor may request that the RDR be reviewed again (RDR
Reconsideration). This RDR Reconsideration may be routed to the same
program office as the initial review or follow a different process.
State approaches for handling RDR Reconsideration requests vary. Some
States address RDR Reconsideration requests within the program office.
If the reviewer performing the RDR Reconsideration review is a State
agency, they may consult with FMCSA for a recommendation. Some States
have implemented review councils or committees. These groups are
comprised of members with CMV experience from the State, and at times
industry, that can perform an independent review of the request.
Decisions on the RDR Reconsiderations are final.
D. The Call for an Independent Appeal Process
Stakeholders from industry, CMV drivers, and the public have
expressed concerns regarding the transparency and uniformity of
addressing RDRs, and specifically, RDR Reconsiderations. Stakeholders
note that program offices do not have a uniform process for initial RDR
reviews or for handling RDR Reconsiderations. They have also noted
concern that RDR Reconsiderations are, in many instances, reviewed and
decided by the same reviewer as the initial request. Users are calling
on FMCSA to ensure an opportunity for an independent review, with
consistently applied standards, for data correction requests.
V. Proposal for FMCSA Appeal Process
A. Proposed Process and Acceptance Criteria
FMCSA proposes the development and implementation of an independent
FMCSA appeal process for RDRs. The Agency expects to use the DataQs
system to accept, track, and respond to requests for FMCSA appeal
review. For this process, FMCSA proposes that DataQs users would be
able to initiate a request for an FMCSA appeal but only after the RDR
has been denied through both the initial review and the RDR
Reconsideration processes. All information and documents provided to
FMCSA would be contained in the DataQs RDR itself. Neither the
requestor nor the program office may submit new facts or evidence at
the time of this third and final appeal request or during its review.
The Agency proposes to limit RDRs accepted for FMCSA appeal to
requests that pertain to significant matters of legal interpretation or
implementation of enforcement policies or regulations. Requests
involving mere factual dispute between parties would not ordinarily be
accepted for review through the FMCSA appeal process. Additionally,
RDRs submitted to the Crash Preventability Determination Program and
petitions to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, would not be eligible
for an FMCSA appeal. The proposed appeal process would not directly
pertain to regulatory procedures external to DataQs, such as requests
for safety rating upgrades, or appeals of registration rejections,
although decisions from the appeals subsequently could be used by the
affected party in such external procedures. If an RDR appeal is
accepted by FMCSA, the determination made as a result of the appeal
would be final.
Table 1 below contains examples of RDRs that might meet the
proposed acceptance criteria for an FMCSA appeal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The examples cited in Tables 1 and 2 are for illustration
purposes only. This notice does not reflect a formal decision by
FMCSA on whether specific requests for Agency intervention, to the
extent already submitted informally, will or will not be accepted
for review on appeal.
Table 1--Example Requests Possibly Acceptable for FMCSA Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for FMCSA appeal
RDR type and scenario acceptance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... Crash--Not Reportable........ Interpretation--Crash
A CMV was involved in a crash Reportability Definition.
where the other driver left Determine whether the crash
the scene. The other driver met FMCSA's definition for
was apprehended a short time reportability of a crash.
later and the vehicle had to
be towed due to damage
sustained during the crash
with the CMV.
[[Page 63198]]
2.......... Inspection--Incorrect Interpretation--ELD and
Violation. Hours of Service (HOS)
The driver was using a Final Rule.
portable electronic logging Interpret the ELD and HOS
device (ELD), mounted to the Supporting Documents Final
center console. The driver Rule, Sec. 395.22 (g)
was cited for a violation ``Portable ELDs. If a
during an inspection because driver uses a portable ELD,
the ELD was not in view of the motor carrier shall
the driver while operating ensure that the ELD is
the CMV. The driver claims mounted in a fixed position
the violation is in error during the operation of the
because ``visible'' means commercial motor vehicle
not hidden and the driver and visible to the driver
only needs to access it when when the driver is seated
changing duty statuses. in the normal driving
position.''
3.......... Inspection--Incorrect Interpretation--National
Violation. Emergency Declaration.
A driver was cited roadside Assess whether the State
with violating HOS correctly applied the
regulations after claiming waiver in response to the
to be operating under a declared hurricane
Regional Emergency emergency.
Declaration in support of
hurricane relief efforts.
The State contended the
commodity being transported
was not part of the relief
efforts.
4.......... Inspection--Citation Interpretation--Adjudicated
Associated with a Violation. Citations Policy.
The driver received a Determine the appropriate
speeding violation, and an outcome for a citation
associated citation, during dismissed with court costs
a traffic enforcement based on the MCMIS Changes
inspection. The citation was to Improve Uniformity in
dismissed in court and the the Treatment of Inspection
driver paid court costs. The Violation Data (Adjudicated
State contends that the Citations Policy).
court costs were punitive
and the equivalent of a
conviction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 below contains examples of RDRs that would not meet the
proposed acceptance criteria for an FMCSA appeal.
Table 2--Example Requests Likely Not Accepted for FMCSA Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for FMCSA appeal
RDR type and scenario rejection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... Crash--Not Reportable........ Based on Insurance
A motor carrier provides Documents--Not Crash
insurance documents stating Reportability Definition.
that they were found ``not FMCSA crash data is based on
at fault'' in the crash and vehicle involvement, and
wants the crash removed as fault is not a
not reportable. consideration in the
reportability of a crash.
2.......... Inspection--Incorrect Disputes Facts--Not Based on
Violation. ELD Regulations or Policy.
A CMV driver received a The request disputes facts
violation during an regarding whether the ELD
inspection for driving was working correctly at
during off-duty hours. The the time of the inspection.
submitter claims that the It also does not require an
ELD was malfunctioning, and interpretation of
the inspector was not regulation or policy.
provided accurate
information. The request did
not include supporting
evidence.
3.......... Inspection--Incorrect Opposing Account--Not Based
Violation. on Regulations.
The driver received a The request presents an
violation for following too opposing account of the
closely during a traffic inspection without concrete
enforcement inspection. evidence. It also does not
Submitter claims that the question the interpretation
driver was not in violation of the regulation.
of the traffic code. The
request did not include
supporting evidence.
4.......... Inspection--Incorrect Leniency Request--Not Based
Violation. on HOS Regulations.
The driver received an HOS The requestor is seeking a
violation because the log data change based on
did not properly reflect purported corrective action
driving hours. The submitter and does not question the
states that the driver has interpretation of the
been retrained in regulation.
maintaining logs and is
requesting the violation be
removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63199]]
The outcome of the FMCSA appeal generally will include a
clarification of the relevant regulation or policy as applied in such
circumstances, and a determination whether correction of the data is
warranted. When an FMCSA appeal results in a clarification that
precipitates the need for a change to State-reported data, FMCSA
proposes to notify the State via DataQs to ensure that the safety data
is updated at the source. Some States may not be able to update their
source data, and in these cases, FMCSA proposes to update the data in
its MCMIS system. Changing data in MCMIS would not update State source
systems, but the changes would flow to downstream Federal systems such
as PSP, SMS, A&I, and the FMCSA Portal.
VI. Independent Review for State RDR Reconsiderations
In addition to proposing the establishment of an FMCSA appeals
process, the Agency wishes to address stakeholder concerns about
independent reviews for all RDRs, not just those related to
regulations, policy, or standards. As such, FMCSA proposes to issue new
requirements for the review of RDR Reconsiderations to program offices.
These proposed guidelines may include requirements to ensure and
certify that each reconsideration request is addressed by a different
reviewer than the person who performed the initial review of the RDR.
VII. Comments Sought
FMCSA seeks comments on the proposals described above. FMCSA seeks
comments on the following specific questions.
1. Should FMCSA appeals be considered for RDRs that are not related
to the interpretation or understanding of regulations, policy, or
standards.
2. If so, what are some examples of RDRs that should be reviewed in
an appeal?
3. As mentioned above, some States and program offices have created
review boards and panels with processes for managing requests or
referrals that occur during the initial RDR review or an RDR
Reconsideration. How would the addition of the FMCSA appeal impact
these review boards and their processes?
4. What burdens, if any, will States face when updating their
source data when notified in DataQs of an FMCSA appeal result that
requires a data change?
a. If a State declined to change the violation in its data systems
as a result of a decision in an FMCSA appeal, or was unable to, what
would be the impact be of having FMCSA update the data in MCMIS
directly while the State retained the original data in the its source
systems?
5. One purpose of the FMCSA review is to provide clarity on
significant regulatory or policy issues. FMCSA appeals may identify
instances where this clarity could be helpful for future RDRs and RDR
Reconsiderations. Are there recommended practices for disseminating
appeal outcomes?
6. Are there any factors that FMCSA should consider relating to its
proposed requirement for a separate reviewer, independent from the
initial reviewer, for program office review for all RDR
Reconsiderations?
Once comments are reviewed and any needed program changes are made,
the Agency will respond to comments received to this notice and
announce the start of the updated program in the Federal Register,
under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-19904 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
