Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) Changes To Improve Uniformity in the Treatment of Inspection Violation Data |
|---|
|
Anne S. Ferro
Federal Highway Administration
June 5, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32491-32496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13022]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 383 and 390
[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0457]
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) Changes To
Improve Uniformity in the Treatment of Inspection Violation Data
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Interpretative Rule and Statement of Policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announced proposed changes to its Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS) on December 2, 2013. These
changes will allow the States to reflect the results of adjudicated
citations related to roadside inspection violation data collected in
MCMIS. Individuals must submit certified documentation of adjudication
results through a Request for Data Review (RDR) in FMCSA's DataQs
system to initiate this process. MCMIS is being modified to accept
adjudication results showing that a citation was dismissed or resulted
in a finding of not guilty; resulted in a conviction of a different or
lesser charge; or, resulted in conviction of the original charge. The
adjudication results will impact the use of roadside inspection
violation data in other FMCSA data systems. These changes are intended
to improve roadside inspection data quality. This document describes
the MCMIS changes, responds to comments received on the proposed
changes and provides the schedule for implementation of these changes.
DATES: June 2, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Courtney Stevenson, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, telephone 202-366-5241 or by email:
courtney.stevenson@dot.gov. FMCSA office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Docket
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
On December 2, 2013 (78 FR 72146), FMCSA encouraged interested
parties to submit comments and related materials to docket number
FMCSA-2013-0457.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this document
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number, ``FMCSA-2013-0457'' in the ``Keyword'' box
and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
All comments the Agency received were posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov and include any personal information
provided. Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
II. Executive Summary
Complete, timely, accurate, and consistently-reported inspection
data
[[Page 32492]]
enables FMCSA to achieve its safety mission by identifying and
addressing trends in regulatory compliance. States adopt and enforce
Federal standards for motor carrier safety and hazardous materials
transportation under State law as an eligibility requirement for
receipt of grant funds under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program (MCSAP). MCSAP also requires that States report violations
discovered through roadside inspections to FMCSA data systems and that
they participate in FMCSA's national data correction system known as
DataQs.
In addition to the inspection data reported to FMCSA, States may
issue a citation associated with a violation noted in the roadside
inspection. Such citations may subsequently be adjudicated in a due
process system. The change reflected in this document and in FMCSA's
data systems will allow motor carriers or drivers to submit the results
of an adjudicated citation through the DataQs system. After confirming
the adequacy of the documentation submitted in an RDR, the State will
submit the adjudication results into the new field created to record
this information.
Adjudication results recorded in MCMIS will potentially impact
other FMCSA data systems, such as the Agency's Safety Measurement
System (SMS) and the Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP).
Based on feedback to the December 2, 2013, notice, the Agency has
determined that it will not apply this policy retroactively. The policy
announced in this document applies to inspections occurring on or after
August 23, 2014. Accordingly DataQs will be modified to accept RDRs
related to adjudicated citations in August 2014. The August 23, 2014,
date is based on the time needed for State implementation of compatible
State information technology (IT) systems able to record and transmit
the adjudication data.
III. Compliance With the Administrative Procedure Act
This document announces changes to MCMIS that support a more
consistent program for handling DataQs seeking recognition of
adjudicated citations. This document contains a general statement of
policy and reflects a change in Agency practice and procedures with
respect to the handling of adjudicated citations through DataQs and in
Agency information systems. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(D), requires agencies to provide public notice of
statements of general policy by publication in the Federal Register.
Such ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' are not subject to the
APA's notice and comment requirements (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). This
document does not amend any Agency regulation nor does it change how
data correction is sought through DataQs. The IT and program changes
announced in this document allow FMCSA and the States to receive more
complete information on the subsequent disposition of citations issued
during roadside inspections by accepting certified records of
adjudication results submitted through the DataQs process.
Presently, MCMIS contains records of inspections, including
violations observed by law enforcement officers, during such commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) inspections. See 78 FR 59082, 59083 (September 25,
2013). Because MCMIS has always been a system that records roadside
inspection data, MCMIS records presently do not reflect convictions,
acquittals or other subsequent adjudications or adjustments of charges
that occur during subsequent due process proceedings. A driver has
always been able to challenge the correctness of a violation that has
been cited in a roadside inspection report using the DataQs system,
whether a citation has been issued for that violation or not.
As currently required in the MCSAP grant program, pursuant to 49
CFR 350.201(s), the States must ``establish a program to ensure that
accurate, complete, and timely motor carrier safety data are collected
and reported, and ensure the State's participation in a national motor
carrier safety data correction system prescribed by FMCSA.'' Today's
announced policy change is thus within the scope of the current MCSAP
program.
IV. Background
A. Databases for Inspection Data
State and local law enforcement officials routinely conduct
roadside inspections documenting violations of laws or regulations that
are compatible with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). See 49 CFR 350.105
(defining ``compatible or ``compatibility''). These law enforcement
officials, at their discretion, may issue citations for the violations
recorded on the roadside inspection report. States are responsible for
entering roadside inspection and violation data into SafetyNet, a
database management system that allows entry, access, analysis, and
reporting of data from driver/vehicle inspections, crashes,
investigations, assignments, and complaints. SafetyNet provides data to
MCMIS that interfaces with several databases, including: (1) The Safety
and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) system; (2) PSP; and (3) SMS.
SafetyNet and MCMIS have always contained records of inspections and
reportable crashes.
B. Motor Carrier Safety Data Correction System
As noted, pursuant to 49 CFR 350.201(s), one condition for
participation in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) 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 (49 CFR 350.211) (State certification at paragraph
11). DataQs is an online system that provides an electronic means for
drivers, motor carriers, and members of the public to submit concerns
about the accuracy of crash, inspection, and violation data in FMCSA
data systems. When a request for an RDR is filed, the DataQs system
automatically forwards the request to the appropriate Federal or State
office for processing and resolution (https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/).
The data system and policy changes announced in this document will
allow drivers, motor carriers, and members of the public to file an RDR
in FMCSA's DataQs system and to seek acknowledgement of the
adjudication in the inspection record. The change in the State data
systems will parallel corresponding changes to FMCSA data systems. A
citation that has been resolved through a judicial or administrative
process, regardless of outcome, is considered to be adjudicated.
FMCSA believes these changes will (1) provide a uniform and orderly
process to incorporate recording adjudicated citations through DataQs
under the State's MCSAP Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans and budgets
(see 49 CFR 350.213 for description of CVSP); (2) provide an effective
process to ensure system effectiveness and data quality; and (3) reduce
the cost of applying and implementing these changes across the Agency
and the States. FMCSA is requiring that MCSAP grantees follow this
policy of recording adjudication results as a condition of their grant
funding under 49 CFR 350.201.
[[Page 32493]]
V. Discussion of Public Comments and FMCSA Responses
A. General Discussion
FMCSA announced proposed changes to MCMIS on December 2, 2013 (78
FR 72146). The Agency received 111 unique comments during the 30-day
comment period. Seventy of the 111 comments supported the proposed
changes, with commenters stating that this change will help ensure that
drivers and carriers are treated justly. Steve Davis, a fleet owner for
FedEx Ground, said, ``I strongly approve of this change to allow
updated court information to be included in MCMIS. This will improve
uniformity without question and give a true account of the resolution
of violation information.'' More than half of the supporting commenters
(38) did not identify themselves with a specific stakeholder group. The
remaining commenters in support of the changes were motor carriers (17)
and representatives of industry associations (9) and the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).
The motor carriers that commented included Coach USA, DART Transit
Company, J.B. Hunt, Sharp Transport, Inc., and Stallion Transportation
Group. The industry associations that submitted comments included the
Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Trucking Transportation
(ASECTT), American Bus Association (ABA), American Moving and Storage
Association (AMSA), American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA),
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), International Food
Distributors Association (IFDA), Minnesota Trucking Association/
Minnesota Trucking Associate Safety Council (MTA/MTASC), National
Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC), Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA).
Those commenters generally opposing the changes offered suggestions
to improve the proposal. These included Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the
Kentucky State Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the West
Virginia Public Service Commission. One commenter, Jeff Steeger, who
did not identify himself with a particular group, objected to the
policy and stated it would ``allow carriers and their drivers to
improve their SMS score while demonstrating a continued lack of
compliance with our safety regulations.''
The common areas of concern included enforcement impacts; pleas,
dismissals, and other court actions; retroactive implementation;
workload and resources; continued uniformity concerns; and questions
about the impacts on SMS weighting based on violation on the
conviction.
Comments to the docket also addressed consistency in the processing
of RDRs, other quality assurance initiatives, crash weighting and the
process for requesting appeals. Most of these issues are outside of the
scope of the December 2, 2013, notice and, therefore, are not addressed
herein. It should be noted, however, that the Agency is involved in
separate initiatives addressing many of these issues.
FMCSA received comments seeking clarification on what is a
``conviction'' under FMCSA regulations and expressing concerns that
routinely-assessed fees may inadvertently count as ``convictions.'' In
Section V.A. of today's document the Agency clarifies how it interprets
the regulatory definitions in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5.
B. Enforcement Impacts
Both law enforcement and industry commenters expressed concerns
that changing how data systems address violations in roadside
inspections based on adjudicated citations would result in law
enforcement officers issuing fewer citations. The impact of this change
would be that officers would issue more warnings, which cannot be
adjudicated by a court. Four commenters affiliated with law enforcement
agencies indicated that this change would result in an influx of RDRs
and increased workload. Coach USA urged that, ``FMCSA should not accept
information regarding violations from state officials unless the state
issued a citation for the alleged violation at issue.''
FMCSA acknowledges that law enforcement agencies may alter their
enforcement practices as a result of today's policy change. However, it
remains the Agency's position that these process changes will improve
data quality, accuracy, and uniformity. The Agency's interests are in
capturing fair and accurate violations in MCMIS. FMCSA has never
provided direction to law enforcement on when to issue citations and
defers to those agencies for the best ways to enforce the violations
they observe.
C. Dismissals, Pleas and Other Court Actions
The treatment of dismissed citations was the most common topic
addressed by commenters. Sixteen commenters argued that a dismissed
citation does not always indicate that the violation did not occur at
the time of the inspection and, therefore, dismissed citations should
not be the sole basis for removing violations from inspection reports.
These commenters expressed the opinion that often citations are
dismissed based on plea bargaining or technical issues such as the
carrier's or driver's evidence of corrective action, a lenient judge or
jury, an absent officer-witness, or a clerical error.
Several commenters expressed concern that there will be increased
attempts to plea bargain to a violation with a lower severity weight to
improve SMS scores. Additionally, commenters expressed concern about
court clerks causing errors or officers being unable to attend
hearings, resulting in dismissals. Lt. Colonel Keith Percy of the
Kentucky State Police, stated that ``Criminal court systems, already
overburdened with cases considered more serious than traffic
violations, are under great pressure to deal cases away, and traffic
cases fall away with little, if any, political consequence.''
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety recommended that ``the agency
should maintain discretion to retain citations, even when dismissed, if
such dismissals are not on the merits and indicate a pattern and
practice that would violate the prohibition against masking of traffic
violations.''
FMCSA acknowledges that these scenarios may occur. However, there
are checks and balances in place to prevent improper dismissal of
commercial driver violations, including 49 CFR 384.226 that prohibits
States from masking convictions, deferring imposition of judgment, or
allowing an individual to enter into a diversion program that would
prevent a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or CDL holder's conviction
from appearing on the Commercial Driver's License Information System
(CDLIS) driving record.
On the issue of burden on the system, it should be noted that,
notwithstanding the nearly 3.5 million inspections conducted from
January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, there were fewer than
40,000 RDRs submitted through DataQs for this period.
Based on an annual estimate of 3.5 million inspections, only 1.1
percent of inspections resulted in an RDR. The Agency has confidence
that the courts will strive to objectively evaluate the charged
violations and that dismissals of citations for administrative or other
reasons will not have a significant impact on the reliability of safety
data. Additionally, the Agency will continue to provide outreach to
courts and prosecutors to explain the serious impacts of cases
involving CMVs and commercial drivers and to improve their
[[Page 32494]]
knowledge and understanding of CMV violations and their potential
consequences.
As part of its data quality program, FMCSA will be monitoring the
incoming data on adjudicated citations to look for patterns that might
indicate routine masking of violations by State officials and take
appropriate action to address these situations.
D. Prospective Implementation
The December 2, 2013, notice specifically asked for comment on the
Agency's plan to implement these changes prospectively. Only six
commenters addressed the issue. Three representatives of industry
associations recommended that the Agency apply the policy
retroactively, starting from the implementation of the Compliance,
Safety, Accountability program in 2010. Two members of the law
enforcement community supported the prospective-only application of the
policy. Stephen Keppler of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance noted
that applying the policy retroactively would have significant adverse
impacts, including decreased data uniformity and consistency, and an
increase in States' workloads that could deplete their resources. Mr.
Keppler also stated that prospective implementation of this policy
``allows for improved planning, resource allocation and management for
both the States and FMCSA.''
The Kentucky State Police indicated that they would expect the
number of RDRs submitted to increase significantly, especially due to
dismissals. The Pennsylvania State Police noted that there would be
significant workload impact on the minor judiciary. The Agency
therefore continued to consider workload in deciding not to implement
this change retroactively.
FMCSA continues to believe that prospective application will
mitigate the potential for significantly increased numbers of RDRs,
based on hundreds--potentially thousands--of past adjudicated
citations, which could quickly exhaust States' DataQs capability. Such
a drain on State DataQs staff could prevent States from promptly acting
on other RDR requests and/or could create a need to redirect scarce
State resources, adversely affecting motor carrier safety enforcement.
As previously stated, FMCSA believes that prospective application will
(1) provide a uniform and orderly process for the States to incorporate
this policy into their State MCSAP plans and budgets (see 49 CFR
350.213); (2) provide an effective process that the Agency can test to
ensure system effectiveness and data quality; and (3) reduce the cost
of applying and implementing these changes across the Agency and the
States.
Based on the comments and the workload and safety impacts noted
above, the Agency has determined that it will implement the policy and
changes prospectively. The policy announced in this document applies to
inspections occurring on or after August 23, 2014. Accordingly, DataQs
will be modified to accept RDRs related to adjudicated citations in
August 2014.
E. Uniformity and Masking
Commenters expressed concern that this proposal effectively moves
the decision making on roadside inspection data from the State DataQs
officials to the courts, where the decisions will not be any more
consistent, based on the courts' and judges' varying knowledge of CMVs,
CDLs, and motor carrier safety regulations.
The IFDA expressed concern that, ``. . . this continued broad
delegation of authority to the states directly contradicts a primary
rationale for the announced changes which is to ``improve uniformity
across the states. Given this obvious inconsistency, we question how
much actual difference the announced changes are likely to make.''
As previously noted, FMCSA will continue and increase its outreach
efforts to courts and prosecutors to remind them of the prohibition in
49 CFR 384.226 on masking convictions, deferring imposition of
judgment, or allowing an individual to enter into a diversion program
that would prevent a CLP or CDL holder's conviction for a violation, in
any type of motor vehicle, of a State or local traffic law (other than
parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing
on the CDLIS driving record.
F. Adequate Documentation
Commenters requested more information on the Agency's definition of
adequate documentation needed to demonstrate dismissal or other
adjudication outcome. ATA recommended that the Agency ``clearly define
`adequate documentation' for the purposes of this notice.'' ATA further
indicated that ``FMCSA must instruct States which documents are
acceptable and provide motor carriers and drivers with recourse to
amend their records should a State refuse to accept proof of
adjudication.''
FMCSA will accept scanned copies of certified documentation from
the appropriate court or administrative tribunal. Examples include but
are not limited to certified records of the docket entry, the order of
dismissal, or entry of a ``not guilty'' determination. FMCSA recognizes
that the varying nature and types of tribunals may result in varying
types of official documentation that contain the adjudication results,
and thus the Agency has not specifically limited the type of document
that must be submitted. The submitter should obtain certified documents
that are clearly identified and verifiable. These documents must be
uploaded into the DataQs system for verification by a State official.
Alternatively, the documentation may include a Web site link to an
official court Web site with adjudication results.
G. SMS Weighting
AAJ and ATA questioned which SMS severity weights would be used if
a conviction was for a different charge than the initial cited
violation. FMCSA clarifies that where the adjudication results in a
conviction to a different charge, the severity weight will be reduced
to a 1 in SMS. The chart in Section V.D. of this document provides more
detail on the impact of changes in SMS and PSP.
VI. Overview of Changes
A. Terms Used in the Document
For purposes of this document, the following terms have the meaning
indicated.
Adequate Documentation: For the purpose of processing an RDR
seeking to document the result of an adjudicated citation, FMCSA finds
that scanned copies of certified documentation from the appropriate
court or administrative tribunal or providing a direct web link to the
adjudication results of an official court or agency Web site presents
adequate and verifiable documentation of the adjudication result.
Adjudicated Citation: Refers to a citation that has been contested
and resolved through a due process proceeding in a State, local, or
administrative tribunal, regardless of how the action is resolved,
whether by a judge or prosecutor or as part of a plea agreement or
otherwise.
Citation: Refers to a notice, issued by a law enforcement officer
to a CMV driver for a violation of law or an adopted FMCSR or HMR. The
driver may contest the citation through a State-provided administrative
or judicial system.
Conviction: This term is defined in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5 as an
unvacated adjudication of guilt, or a determination that a person has
violated or failed to comply with the law in a court of
[[Page 32495]]
original jurisdiction or by an authorized administrative tribunal, an
unvacated forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure the
person's appearance in court, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere
accepted by the court, the payment of a fine or court costs, or
violation of a condition of release without bail, regardless of whether
or not the penalty is rebated, suspended, or probated.
Court Costs: FMCSA interprets ``court costs'' as fees imposed by a
court or administrative tribunal that are intended to cover the State's
expenses of handling the case. Payment of an incidental expense
uniformly imposed on all persons that appear before a particular court
or tribunal regardless of case outcome should not be considered a court
cost under FMCSA's regulatory definition of ``Conviction.'' Examples of
excluded, non-punitive court costs include but are not limited to
scheduling fees, the cost of a certified copy of the court's docket or
order, or attorney fees.
Fine: A sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense. A court
cost may be considered a fine when the amount charged exceeds the
amount generally imposed for court costs and is akin to a penalty.
Unvacated: Refers to an order or judgment that has not been
canceled or rescinded.
B. New Data Field for Adjudicated Citations Results
Previously, SafetyNet and MCMIS recorded inspection and violation
data from the initial inspection report only and did not contain a data
field that would allow the State to append the result of an adjudicated
citation to the appropriate violation on the inspection report. With
these changes, SafetyNet and MCMIS will be modified to provide a field
that may be populated with the adjudication result of a citation
associated with the related inspection report. The adjudication result
will impact the use of the related violations in SMS and PSP, as
indicated in the chart below in Section V.D.
C. Revised DataQs Guidance to the States
FMCSA will issue revised direction to the States on receiving,
reviewing, and documenting adjudication results when an RDR containing
adequate documentation is submitted. Upon confirming the adequacy and
accuracy of the documentation, States will enter the adjudication
result in the field appending the inspection record in SafetyNet. State
and Federal data systems will be modified to accept data concerning a
citation associated with a violation that was dismissed or resulted in
a finding of not guilty or resulted in a conviction of a different or
lesser charge.
D. Impact of Changes in SMS and PSP
The following table indicates how the adjudication outcomes
documented in MCMIS will impact the use of the cited violation in
FMCSA's SMS and PSP databases:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result of adjudicated citation
associated with a violation Violation in SMS Violation in PSP
uploaded to MCMIS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismissed with fine or punitive Violation not removed.. Violation not removed.
court costs.
Dismissed without fine or Remove violation....... Remove Violation.
punitive court costs.
Not Guilty...................... Remove violation....... Remove Violation.
Convicted of a lesser charge.... Append inspection to Append inspection to indicate violation ``Resulted in
indicate violation conviction of a different charge.''
``Resulted in
conviction of a
different charge.''
Change severity weight
to 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by FMCSA's MCSAP regulations (49 CFR part 350), States
must follow the Agency's regulatory definition of ``conviction'' in 49
CFR 383.5 and 390.5 and address RDRs accordingly. Thus, when an RDR
indicates that a court dismissed a citation while still imposing a fine
or punitive court cost, the outcome will be recorded in MCMIS as a
conviction.
E. Prohibition on Masking Convictions
FMCSA regulation at 49 CFR 384.226 prohibits States from masking
convictions, deferring imposition of judgment, or allowing an
individual to enter into a diversion program that would prevent a CLP
or CDL holder's conviction for any violation, in any type of motor
vehicle, of a State or local traffic control law (other than parking,
vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing on the
CDLIS driving record, whether the driver was convicted for an offense
committed in the State where the driver is licensed or another State.
The Agency views the practice of courts dismissing citations after a
guilty plea has been entered or following payment of a fine or
mandatory contribution to a State or local program as a condition of
dismissal, as ``masking'' of a commercial driver's violation of State
or local traffic control laws. Masking convictions allows commercial
drivers to accumulate multiple serious traffic safety violations
without the driver's State of licensure or other States being aware of
the driver's actual driving history, and it is for this safety reason
that such practices are prohibited.
The changes to State and FMCSA data systems outlined in this
document will enable both the Agency and the State licensing agencies
to better track and document patterns and practices that are
inconsistent with 49 CFR 384.226 concerning the masking prohibition.
States found to have used masking or other diversionary programs may be
found in substantial noncompliance and could risk decertification of
their CDL programs, which could impact grant funding.
VII. Implementation Plan
A. Policy
FMCSA's State Programs Division will issue direction to the MCSAP
agencies explaining the expectations and responsibilities related to
the adjudicated citation process. This policy will apply to inspections
occurring on or after August 23, 2014, and will be included in the next
version of the DataQs manual.
B. Training
FMCSA will conduct training for DataQs analysts through DataQs
email blasts, training bulletins and webinars. The webinars and other
training will be provided to DataQs analysts before the policy is
implemented to improve the consistency of implementation. The Agency
will also be providing training to its own staff. In addition,
information will be available on the Agency's Web site and on the
DataQs Web site.
[[Page 32496]]
Issued on: May 30, 2014.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-13022 Filed 6-2-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P