A violation recorded incorrectly on an inspection: what DataQs reviews

Prepare your request: evidence checklist

• Identify the inspection report number, State and date, and the exact field or violation you dispute.
• Identify the incorrect code or repeated violation entry and explain the condition at the time of inspection and the correction requested. Use the violation code that applied at that time.
• Suggested supporting records: the inspection report and dated photographs, maintenance or other contemporaneous records relevant to the disputed condition. A repair made after the inspection does not by itself show that the entry was wrong when the inspection occurred. Evidence must establish the disputed error, not merely that a defect was later repaired (§§4.13–4.14, 6.8, pp. 28–29, 56).

RoadsideProof's upload checklist is an intake condition for its optional automated completeness check. An inspection report that lets the software start is not proof that an RDR should be granted. The reviewing agency decides whether the evidence supports the correction. A record-error request does not require a court disposition merely because it is an RDR.

Next: submit the evidence with your own DataQs request, then track it and answer requests for more information. For State requests, use the deadlines guide to check the applicable review stage and response window.

• DataQs deadlines and review stages

The request type

FMCSA's DataQs Analyst Guide: "A driver or a motor carrier filer submits an RDR to the DataQs website, along with supporting documentation, asserting that the MCSAP inspector entered an incorrect violation code on the inspection report documenting a roadside inspection of one of the motor carrier's vehicles." (§6.8, p. 56).

The guide's list of request types says the filer chooses it "when he/she believes that the inspection record(s) in question contains inaccurate and/or incomplete violation information on the vehicles and/or drivers that underwent inspection." (§4.12, p. 25).

What the analyst checks first

"The DataQs analyst should review the original State report (crash or inspection) and SAFETYNET to verify the carrier assigned to the vehicle record in question." (p. 56).

"In addition, it is recommended that the vehicle in question be verified against the original State report." (p. 56).

Your documents and the inspector

"Second, review all documentation (if any) submitted by the filer to justify his/her request to modify the inspection file in MCMIS. If, in the estimation of the DataQs analyst, the filer's documentation is inadequate, he/she should contact the filer via the DataQs website and request additional information. Upon receipt of additional documentation, he/she should contact the MCSAP inspector responsible for the inspection report to discuss the issue at hand." (p. 56).

FMCSA's 2026 notice limits the inspector's part in the decision. For Initial Review: "The issuing officer or inspector cannot be the sole decision-maker when the outcome of the RDR is 'Closed--No Data Correction Made.'" For Reconsideration: "The RDR Reconsideration must not be reviewed or decided by the issuing officer or inspector, nor an immediate supervisor of the issuing officer or inspector." (91 FR 20567).

The burden of proof

The guide: "A letter to the State from the driver or the carrier simply claiming that the data reported are in error, or requesting that data be removed from his/her profile, is not sufficient. If no evidence is provided by the requestor, the RDR should be denied for insufficient evidence." (§4.14, p. 29).

The revised State DataQs process applies to requests submitted on or after September 18, 2026. It is not retroactive and does not establish deadlines for Federal reviews. The requestor bears the burden of proof at all three stages. A request to remove or modify information must explain the factual or legal basis for why it is incorrect or incomplete, with necessary supporting documents (91 FR 20567).

Updated codes are not applied to older inspections

The guide asks whether recently updated violation codes apply retroactively and answers: "No, pursuant to FMCSA policy, updated IT codes are only applied prospectively as of the date of implementation." It continues: "RDR filings requesting that violation IT codes be applied retroactively should be closed with no data correction made." (§4.17, p. 30).

Violations on an intermodal chassis

For a request about an IEP violation, the analyst's first step is to "Check to ensure that the State Inspection Official correctly recorded unit two as an intermodal chassis and properly identified the IEP." Then: "Check the motor carrier's SMS data to determine whether the intermodal chassis violation appears there. If the violation does not appear on the SMS page, it is not included in the SMS calculation." (§4.18, p. 30).

Not every chassis violation goes to the IEP: "IEPs will not be held responsible for visible or audible intermodal chassis violations that could be detected during a driver's pre-trip inspection. Some violations, although on the chassis, may be attributed to the motor carrier." The analyst is told to recommend that filers "review Section 390.44 of the FMCSRs as well as the implementing law for a complete description." (p. 30).

When the violation came with a citation

A court outcome is a different request type, "Inspection—Citation with Associated Violation". The guide: "The filer chooses this option because he/she will provide documentation showing the adjudicated outcome of a citation associated with a violation cited on a roadside inspection report." (§4.12, p. 25). What each outcome does to the record is in the citation guide.

If the State agrees

"If the documentation and the DataQs analyst's research confirm the existence of an incorrectly coded violation in the motor carrier's MCMIS inspection file, the DataQs analyst should take the steps necessary (according to his/her State's protocol) to update the inspection file. Corrections to MCMIS data should be uploaded within 7 days from the date that the State concluded an error occurred. The DataQs analyst should then notify the motor carrier and other involved participants via the DataQs website that this change was made." (p. 56).

How long a review can be requested

The revised State DataQs process applies to requests submitted on or after September 18, 2026. It is not retroactive and does not establish deadlines for Federal reviews. The 2026 notice requires States to accept and conduct a good-faith review of inspection RDRs submitted within 3 years of the inspection and crash RDRs within 5 years of the crash (91 FR 20566).

How RoadsideProof handles this category

For this category the paid check looks for one document: the inspection report. The check is about whether the first filing is complete.

We do not file for you. You file from your own account and you sign it, and that signature carries 18 U.S.C. 1001.

We do not promise an outcome. The burden of proof is on the filer. The revised State DataQs process applies to requests submitted on or after September 18, 2026. It is not retroactive and does not establish deadlines for Federal reviews. Its stages are Initial Review, Reconsideration, and Final Review. FMCSA considers the State's RDR decision final after Final Review is completed; this is separate from a court's disposition of a citation.

Sources

FMCSA, DataQs Analyst Guide: Best Practices for Federal and State Agency Users, 2nd edition, December 2014, sections 4.12, 4.14, 4.17, 4.18 and 6.8, as hosted on the DataQs site and archived on 2026-05-26. Page numbers are the guide's own. The inspector's part in the decision and the burden of proof: Federal Register, 91 FR 20567, FR Doc. 2026-07429.