Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices 63195 

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--30- 

million-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 

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 

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, 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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. 

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 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices 63197 

1See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the 

Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 

FR 8,452 (Feb. 22, 2002). 2MCSAP 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. 3See https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataQs/Data/ 

Guide/DataQs_Users_Guide_and_Best_Practices_

Manual.pdf. 

4The 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. 

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 

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

RDR type and scenario Reason for FMCSA appeal acceptance 

1. 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
63198 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLE REQUESTS POSSIBLY ACCEPTABLE FOR FMCSA APPEAL—Continued 

RDR type and scenario Reason for FMCSA appeal acceptance 

2. 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.

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.’’ 

3. 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.

Interpretation—National Emergency Declaration. 

Assess whether the State correctly applied the waiver in response 

to the declared hurricane emergency. 

4. 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—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). 

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

RDR type and scenario Reason for FMCSA appeal rejection 

1. 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.

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. 

2. 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.

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. 

3. 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.

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. 

4. 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.

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2023 / Notices 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 

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 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1