When the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration unveiled new requirements for states handling DataQs challenges earlier this month, the move suggested big changes across the country.
Yet early responses from states queried by Overdrive editors show something like the opposite: The new requirements won’t change much in their jurisdictions, even in response to the headline outright ban of issuing-officer decision on challenges. That new prohibition followed longstanding complaints from the trucking community about fairness of state processes.
- Overdrive contacted all 48 contiguous states (and Alaska) with Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funding by the agency newly tied to states' adherence to the agency's DataQs standards.
- FMCSA put new rules on timely resolution, likewise second- and final third-stage reviews.
- Of the five states that have responded so far, none felt the new standards would necessitate change to their DataQs handling, though one urged FMCSA to do more to combat carriers' "frivolous" requests overloading their departments.
- With its new standards, the agency made explicit that what it called the "burden of proof" for all DataQs reviews is "entirely with the requestor," the party challenging the violation, inspection, or crash.
- States retain the discretion to reject requests out of hand that are submitted without minimal factual or legal justification.
Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Kevin Kelley noted his state's biggest challenge will remain the "frivolous requests" for DataQs review, he said. “Missouri received approximately 2,800 [DataQs] Requests last year -- a large majority of those requests were false,” or completely unjustified, rejected by the state's review personnel.
"Finding a way to remove these requests or add penalties to the requestor might reduce the number of frivolous requests a state sees," he added. "They really bog down the system.”
Missouri wasn't the only state to raise that idea -- namely, that some sort of penalty should be applied to a motor carrier or driver who files an unsupported DataQs challenge.
Texas Department of Public Safety Major Omar Villarreal, fresh off a trip to Chicago for the Workshop event of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, noted "many officers across the country would like the FMCSA to implement a consequence for frivolous filings.”
Villarreal said his agency itself has dealt with “quite a few incidents of frivolous DataQ submissions that we have quickly mitigated.” Just as so many owner-operators have utilized dash cameras to resolve disputes after crashes, even at roadside with officers, Texas DPS captures evidence from a trooper or other officer’s body-worn camera, which “has proven invaluable in addressing fraudulent challenges."
Still other states just don't see a problem with fraudulent, frivolous or otherwise false DataQs.
In Nebraska, State Patrol Lieutenant Mike Maytum gives credit to officers’ “appropriate application of law and regulation … in the first place" as explanation. "Frankly, we don’t see the overload that some states do," he said. "Being able to limit frivolous requests makes the system better for everyone, and I am very much in favor of that."
In addition to crediting his officers' just application of law, he advised motor carriers and others filing DataQs to be realistic, supporting challenges with the facts, not "just throwing darts at the board to see what might stick," he said. Such a blitzkrieg approach to challenging violations will just "clog the system and slow the process for everyone.”
CVSA representatives, also contacted for this story, didn't respond in time to provide input on whether the alliance had ever considered what penalizing a DataQs filer for the dartboard approach to challenges might look like.
The five states that did respond, representing a cross section of contiguous jurisdictions across the center of the United States, didn't offer much in that regard, either, but came with plenty advice for individual owner-operators, small fleet owners and drivers on how to make a real DataQs dart stick.
Find a round-up of that advice below, coupled with insight on FMCSA's new DataQs standards for states. Overdrive will update this story as more state MCSAP agencies respond.
[Related: False log! or: Another name for '72 miles south of Chaparral, N.M.']
Are you ready for Roadcheck? Friendly reminder: the annual inspection event's upcoming May 12-14. Keep tuned next week for a little more advance reporting. Alex Lockie
Arkansas
Arkansas Highway Police Chief Jeff Holmes agreed with FMCSA’s approach to leaving the DataQs review and appeals process in the hands of states. Holmes called it the “right way to address concerns with [the] DataQs system.”
Holmes noted that new rules “will have no effect on how the Arkansas State Police handle the volume of DataQs requests,” adding that “AHP will continue to research each DataQ and respond in a timely and appropriate manner.” To that end, Holmes said AHP averages just under eight days per DataQs request.
The state “will continue to strive to respond to DataQs in an impartial, transparent and timely manner,” he added.
Arkansas has used a panel approach for the Final Review stage of appeals, explicitly allowed for in FMCSA's recent notice imposing the new standard. Unlike in other states (notably Minnesota), that panel does not include a representative of industry -- it's made up of the FMCSA Arkansas Division Administrator, and the Chief and Major of AHP.
The panel “has worked extremely well and will remain a standard practice,” Holmes added.
For motor carriers filing DataQs reviews as a result of an inspection or violation in Arkansas, Holmes advised that carriers “file your DataQ in a timely manner and provide a clear statement of what you are wanting AHP to review. Provide details, documentation, photos and evidence relevant to assist in the assessment of review.”
[Related: How to challenge erroneous violation and crash data: FMCSA's DataQs system]
Kansas
Kansas Highway Patrol Lieutenant Adam Winters feels that as long as states follow FMCSA's guidelines on DataQs, "each DataQ from the beginning to the end of the process, including appeals, will be handled correctly."
Winters credited KHP's DataQs team, which he said is "dedicated and expedient at addressing" challenges. "Kansas gets several DataQs a day, but we continue to respond in a matter of a day or two, sometimes within hours. Our process works well, and this change won’t affect our process."
Kansas also already meets FMCSA's requirement that bars inspecting- or issuing-officer decision on DataQs and involvement second- and third-stage reviews.
Timeliness standards shouldn't be issue, Winters added. KHP's closure rate on DataQs in 2025 was 4.6 days and, so far in 2026, that rate is 3.6 days. That's even with what he called a "glitch in the system" in which even if a DataQ is closed within hours, if the requestor reopens the DataQ "three months later for a reconsideration or appeal, it will show that request has been open for three months. Factoring that in, our closure rate is likely closer to two days."
KHP additionally "can and will use a committee-type group" at any or all stages of DataQs, Winters noted. KHP's committee "consists of our DataQ team, nationally certified instructors, supervisors, the Kansas Corporation Committee, and the FMCSA local office if we are wanting a second opinion on a DataQ. This committee has been leveraged for each step of the DataQs process. We will continue to use this process as needed for DataQs."
Winters recognizes the importance it all for the motor carrier community and said DataQs "challenges should be a priority for the agency and responded to quickly. We encourage companies to file DataQs if they feel the violation or inspection was completed in error."
KHP's process, he added, "guarantees to be timely, fair and remains firm in following the Code of Federal Regulations. CVSA policy dictates that we notate all violations discovered during a roadside inspection. We follow that policy and will review each DataQ to determine if the violations challenged were valid and notated correctly at the time of the inspection."
Missouri
Similar to Arkansas and Kansas, DataQs reviews will largely be business as usual moving forward in the Show Me State, angst over "false" DataQs notwithstanding.
“Missouri already has a three-step process with the Missouri FMCSA Division Office being the final reviewer,” Captain Kevin Kelley said of the MHSP. ”We will continue with this process. Missouri takes photos and video of almost every stop and violation. That has really assisted us in the review of the requests.”
Additionally, as FMCSA’s new rules ban the issuing/inspecting officer from being a party to review adjudication decisions, Missouri noted that it’s never allowed that to happen anyway. “As with any thorough review, the analyst must gather data/evidence from all parties involved, which includes the officer, driver, carrier, regulations” and more, Kelley said. “Final decisions will be made based on the evidence provided.”
And much like in Arkansas, Kelley advised DataQs filers to get their requests in quickly and to “provide good supporting documentation.”
The state plans to “continue to handle requests in a fair and impartial manner to make sure the data listed on the inspection report is correct,” he added. “I understand how hard drivers/carriers work to keep their scores good and their records clean. Obviously, we never want to make a mistake or penalize a carrier or driver incorrectly.”
[Related: Preventable or not? When to use DataQs to request crash reviews for preventability]
Nebraska
NSP's Mike Maytum said his agency treats the DataQs process like a veritable courtroom.
“In many cases, a DataQ is the only courtroom some violations see, so our approach is to handle it that way, by pointing to applicable regulation, or law, which became the basis for a violation after our review,” he said.
The new timelines required by FMCSA won’t be an issue for Nebraska, as NSP currently handles Initial Reviews within four to five days and Appeals within seven days.
NSP said it has always handled DataQs “outside of the inspecting officer’s chain of command, and the inspecting officer is never a responder in the DataQ system.”
Nebraska has also used a panel for Final Reviews for more than a decade, but “we have convened the panel only twice that I can think of,” Maytum said. “Again, I credit that to the effort we place in getting a review right the first time.”
Maytum suggests that carriers filing DataQs take a similar approach that Nebraska’s officers do -- "treat a DataQ like you would a court case. If you believe there is a factual basis for a change, state that, along with proof and documentation. We are never hesitant to make an appropriate change. Law enforcement officers are fallible and can make mistakes.”
Texas
FMCSA’s timeline of 21 days to complete initial and secondary reviews, and 45 days to complete final reviews, won’t be an issue in the Lone Star State, said Texas DPS Major Omar Villarreal.
In fiscal year 2025, Texas’ average time for DataQ challenges was 13.3 days, open to close.
He recommended owner-ops not be shy about taking control of a questionable violation more directly to reduce clogging the DataQs system, noting that “many questions about violations/crashes can be addressed at the local level by simply reaching out to the initiating trooper/officer or their immediate supervisor. Questionable violations can be quickly resolved directly, rather than through a drawn-out administrative process” like DataQs.
According to Villarreal, out of the total 278,008 North American Standard Inspections conducted by Texas DPS in 2025, the agency only handled 5,040 DataQ challenges, representing about 1.8% of all inspections.
[Related: Setting the record straight: Overdrive's 2021 multipart series investigation DataQs issues]
