Rule2026-02965
Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 13, 2026
Effective
March 16, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Abstract
FMCSA amends the Federal regulations for State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) issuing commercial driving credentials to non-domiciled individuals. This final rule reaffirms, with minor changes, the provisions of the interim final rule (IFR) published on September 29, 2025. Specifically, this final rule limits eligibility for non-domiciled Commercial Learner's Permits (CLPs) and Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs) for foreign-domiciled individuals to those who hold specific, verifiable employment-based nonimmigrant status. This rule reaffirms the IFR requirements, aligning the issuance of non- domiciled CDLs with FMCSA's statutory mandate to ensure the fitness of all drivers who operate a CMV. By limiting eligibility to statuses subject to enhanced consular vetting of driver history and interagency screening, FMCSA restores the integrity of the CDL system, closes a significant safety gap, and enhances the safety of the traveling public.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7044-7103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02965]
[[Page 7043]]
Vol. 91
Friday,
No. 30
February 13, 2026
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 383 and 384
Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers
Licenses (CDL); Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7044]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 383 and 384
[Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0622]
RIN 2126-AC98
Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial
Drivers Licenses (CDL)
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal regulations for State Driver's
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) issuing commercial driving credentials to
non-domiciled individuals. This final rule reaffirms, with minor
changes, the provisions of the interim final rule (IFR) published on
September 29, 2025. Specifically, this final rule limits eligibility
for non-domiciled Commercial Learner's Permits (CLPs) and Commercial
Driver's Licenses (CDLs) for foreign-domiciled individuals to those who
hold specific, verifiable employment-based nonimmigrant status. This
rule reaffirms the IFR requirements, aligning the issuance of non-
domiciled CDLs with FMCSA's statutory mandate to ensure the fitness of
all drivers who operate a CMV. By limiting eligibility to statuses
subject to enhanced consular vetting of driver history and interagency
screening, FMCSA restores the integrity of the CDL system, closes a
significant safety gap, and enhances the safety of the traveling
public.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 16, 2026.
Comments on the information collection in this final rule must be
submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by March 16, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Thomas, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Safety, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-2551; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3271767e60475e575f53595b5c5572565d461c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4003040c12352c252d212b292e2700242f346e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Dockets Operations at (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Comments on the Information Collection
III. Executive Summary
IV. Abbreviations
V. Legal Basis
VI. Discussion of the IFR and Comments
A. Overview of the IFR
B. Comments and Responses
VII. International Impacts
VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis
A. Regulatory Provisions
B. Guidance Statements and Interpretations
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
C. Congressional Review Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
E. Assistance for Small Entities
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
I. Privacy
J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
K. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0622/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0622/document</a> and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click the IFR, then
click ``Document Comments.'' If you do not have access to the internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in room
W58-213 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.
II. Comments on the Information Collection
Written comments and recommendations for the information collection
discussed in this final rule should be sent within 30 days of
publication to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this information
collection by clicking the link that reads ``Currently under Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by entering OMB control number 2126-0087
in the search bar and clicking on the last entry to reach the
``comment'' button.
III. Executive Summary
This final rule revises the regulations that allow SDLAs to issue
and renew non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals not domiciled in a
U.S State. This final rule builds on and makes minor revisions to the
regulatory changes in the IFR published on September 29, 2025 titled,
``Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial
Drivers Licenses (CDL)'' (90 FR 46509). In reaffirming the changes made
in the IFR and making some revisions for clarity, this final rule
closes a critical safety gap in the Nation's commercial drivers
licensing system that has manifested in two ways: (1) the issuance of
licenses to individuals whose safety fitness cannot be adequately
verified by SDLAs; and (2) the reliance on Employment Authorization
Documents (EAD) \1\ to demonstrate eligibility for a non-domiciled CDL,
which has proven administratively unworkable and resulted in widespread
regulatory non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766/EAD),
issued by USCIS, indicates that the holder is authorized to work in
the United States for a specific time period. See <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/employment-authorization-document">https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/employment-authorization-document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the agency identified an unacceptable bifurcated standard in
driver vetting. While domestic CDL applicants face rigorous driver
history checks through the Commercial Driver's License Information
System (CDLIS) and the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS), non-
domiciled applicants were previously processed without equivalent
checks on their foreign driving history. This effectively shielded
unsafe driving behaviors--including serious violations or fatal
crashes--simply because they occurred outside the reach of U.S.
databases. It is important to recognize that a non-domiciled driver's
foreign driving record is not only historical, but also concurrent, as
the driver is not required to surrender their foreign license to obtain
a non-domiciled CDL and may be driving in another country during the
same time period in which they hold a non-domiciled CDL. In this case,
the SDLA does not have access to either the historical or the
concurrent information. To close this loophole and fulfill FMCSA's
statutory mandate to ensure the safety fitness of CMV drivers, this
rule establishes eligibility criteria for foreign-domiciled drivers
seeking non-domiciled CDLs. Following consultation with the U.S.
Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
eligibility is limited to nonimmigrant status holders who undergo
enhanced consular vetting and interagency screening which serves as a
functional proxy for driver history vetting by the SDLAs. By limiting
eligibility to the nonimmigrant status holders identified through
consultation with the U.S. Department of State, H-2A (Temporary
Agricultural Workers), H-2B (Temporary Non-Agricultural
[[Page 7045]]
Workers), and E-2 (Treaty Investors) nonimmigrant status holders,\2\
FMCSA ensures that non-domiciled drivers undergo rigorous driver
history checks that SDLAs, who lack access to this critical
information, are incapable of performing independently. This ensures
all drivers on U.S. roadways satisfy a comparable standard of
background and driver history vetting, consistent with FMCSA's
statutory mandate to ensure the fitness of CMV operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information on the requirements and processes
required for the listed statuses see <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states">https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA identified 17 fatal crashes in 2025 that were caused by
actions of non-domiciled CDL holders whose fitness could not be ensured
and thus would be ineligible under this new rule. FMCSA did not
identify, out of all the crashes the Agency reviewed, any that were
caused by non-domiciled CDL holders who would remain eligible under the
revised regulations. These crashes resulted in 30 fatalities and
numerous severe injuries, underscoring the lethal consequences of
allowing unvetted operators behind the wheel of CMVs. FMCSA believes
that that the previous SDLA-administered process for foreign-domiciled
drivers was insufficient to screen for high-risk drivers.
Furthermore, Annual Program Reviews (APRs) revealed systemic non-
compliance with FMCSA regulations governing the issuance of non-
domiciled CDLs. Under 49 CFR 383.71 and 383.73, SDLAs must issue
regular CLPs and CDLs to drivers who are U.S. citizens or lawful
permanent residents. With respect to foreign-domiciled drivers,
regulations in effect prior to September 29, 2025 IFR, and currently in
effect, provide that States that issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to
foreign-domiciled drivers may only accept as valid proof of lawful
presence (i) an unexpired EAD issued by the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) or (ii) an unexpired foreign passport
accompanied by an approved I-94 form documenting the driver's most
recent admittance into the United States. Further, the regulations
require that States accept as valid only unexpired lawful presence
documents, which also means that the State must make the period of
validity of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL less than or equal to the
period of validity of the driver's lawful presence document(s). In
other words, because FMCSA's regulations considered only unexpired
lawful presence documents to be valid, States were required to ensure
that the non-domiciled CLP or CDL period of validity do not exceed the
expiration of the driver's lawful presence documents. Therefore, State
driver's licensing agencies are required to ensure that the validity of
non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs did not exceed the expiration date of
drivers' lawful presence documents. In addition, States may not issue a
non-domiciled CLP or CDL to citizens of Mexico or Canada, with the
exception of those present in the United States under the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under FMCSA's 2023
guidance, which is being rescinded under this final rule, States were
permitted to issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL to citizens of Mexico or
Canada only if they are present in the United States under the DACA
program.
More than 30 States have issued tens of thousands non-domiciled
CDLs contrary to Federal regulations. In this regard, SDLAs have issued
noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs that extend beyond the expiration of
drivers' lawful presence in the United States, issued non-domiciled
CDLs to citizens of Mexico and Canada not present in the United States
under the DACA program, issued non-domiciled CDLs to lawful permanent
residents who should have been issued regular CDLs, and issued non-
domiciled CDLs without providing evidence that it verified the driver's
lawful presence in the United States under the standards set forth in
49 CFR part 383. For example, in California, FMCSA found a non-
compliance rate of approximately 25 percent among reviewed non-
domiciled files, while New York and Texas demonstrated staggering error
rates of 53 and 49 percent respectively.
This rule also replaces a complex framework for the issuance of
non-domiciled CDLs to DACA recipients and other EAD holders with a
``bright-line'' eligibility standard. For example, as explained above,
under the prior regulations, States are prohibited from issuing a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL to a driver domiciled in Canada or Mexico, with
the exception of Canadian and Mexican drivers present in the United
States under DACA. An individual's DACA status is indicated on the EAD
under the category code ``C33.'' However, SDLAs have demonstrated
challenges reliably distinguishing between EAD codes and language that
were considered under prior guidance to indicate a permissible basis
for issuance of a non-domiciled CDL to a driver domiciled in Canada or
Mexico (e.g., C33--``Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals'') and
those considered to indicate an impermissible basis (e.g., C14--
``Deferred Action'' or ``Alien Granted Deferred Action'').\3\ This
confusion, along with uneven application of the regulations and
guidance, led to the improper issuance of many non-domiciled CDLs to
drivers domiciled in Canada or Mexico. To restore system integrity,
FMCSA now requires an unexpired foreign passport and an I-94
corresponding to a specific valid employment-based nonimmigrant status.
This objective standard eliminates the burden on SDLAs to interpret
complex immigration codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EAD codes correspond to eligibility categories listed in 8
CFR 274a.12. See <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/employment-authorization">https://www.uscis.gov/employment-authorization</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, this rule aligns the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs
with FMCSA's statutory mandate to ``ensure the fitness'' of CMV
operators. By limiting eligibility to statuses subject to consular
vetting and interagency screening, FMCSA closes a significant safety
gap, solves the bifurcated standard, and prioritizes the safety of the
traveling public.
IV. Abbreviations
AAMVA American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial
Organizations
AFSCME American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
AFT American Federation of Teachers
APA Administrative Procedure Act
APR Annual Program Review
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ATA American Trucking Associations
ATRI American Transportation Research Institute
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CDL Commercial driver's license
CDLIS Commercial Driver's License Information System
CRA Civil Rights Act of 1964
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Commercial learner's permit
CMV Commercial motor vehicle
CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
COFA Compact of Free Association
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic
DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DMV Department of motor vehicles
DOL Department of Labor
DOT Department of Transportation
EAD Employment Authorization Document
ELD Electronic logging device
ELP English language proficiency
E.O. Executive Order
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FAS Freely Associated States
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
FSM Federated States of Micronesia
ICR Information collection request
IFR Interim final rule
[[Page 7046]]
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
IT Information technology
MALDEF Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NJSBCA New Jersey School Bus Contractors Association
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OES Occupational Employment Statistics
OFLC Office of Foreign Labor Certification
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PII Personally identifiable information
RCUSA Refugee Counsel USA
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory impact analysis
SALDEF Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund
SAS Service Annual Survey
SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
SBTC Small Business in Transportation Coalition
Secretary The Secretary of Transportation
SDLA State Driver's Licensing Agency
SSN Social Security number
TPR Training Provider Registry
TPS Temporary Protected Status
USW United Steelworkers
U.S.C. United States Code
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
VLS Verification of Lawful Status
V. Legal Basis
This final rule is based on the broad authority granted to the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA, 49 U.S.C. 31301, et seq.), as amended, which
forms the basis for the CDL program and the performance standards with
which State CDL programs must comply. Among other things, the statute
requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations on minimum standards
``for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a
commercial motor vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). It also requires the
Secretary, after consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations
on minimum uniform standards for the issuance of CDLs and CLPs by the
States and for information to be contained on each license and permit
(49 U.S.C. 31308). Further, it prohibits States from issuing CDLs to
drivers who have been disqualified as a result of committing serious
traffic violations or certain offenses, such as driving a CMV under the
influence of alcohol or controlled substance, leaving the scene of an
accident, or using a CMV in committing a felony, or drivers whose
licenses have been suspended, revoked, or cancelled (49 U.S.C. 31310,
31311(a)(10)). In addition, section 32204 of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, 49 U.S.C. 31310(k))
explicitly provides that drivers licensed by an authority outside of
the United States or foreign citizens operating CMVs in the United
States are subject to the same disqualification requirements as
domestic CMV drivers. This final rule fulfills FMCSA's statutory duty
to prescribe minimum standards to ensure the safety fitness of drivers
(49 U.S.C. 31305) and to prescribe issuance standards that are uniform
(49 U.S.C. 31308). As discussed in greater detail in Section VI.B, the
current regulatory framework has resulted in a bifurcated safety
standard in which U.S.-domiciled drivers are subject to strict safety
vetting, while permitting foreign-domiciled drivers to operate under a
demonstrably lower threshold for scrutiny, thereby compromising public
safety. This final rule aligns the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs with
the statutory mandates to ``ensure the fitness'' of CMV operators (49
U.S.C. 31305(a)) and it also ensures consistent application of the laws
consistent with the statutory mandate in 49 U.S.C. 31308.
The CMVSA provides that States may issue CDLs to individuals who
are ``not domiciled in a State that issues [CDLs],'' but if they choose
to issue non-domiciled CDLs, they must do so in accordance with
regulations prescribed by FMCSA (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(B)). This
statutory language grants the agency explicit discretion to define the
parameters of eligibility. The regulations setting forth the standards
States must apply when issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs are found at
49 CFR 383.23, 383.71(f), 383.73(f), 384.201, and 384.212(a). By
authorizing, but not requiring, the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs,
Congress did not create an unqualified right for every foreign-
domiciled driver who wishes to operate CMVs in the United States to
obtain a CDL; rather, Congress created a pathway to permit States to
issue CDLs and CLPs to foreign-domiciled drivers whom the Secretary
determines are eligible. This final rule exercises that delegated
authority to narrow eligibility for foreign-domiciled drivers who wish
to obtain a non-domiciled CDL to those classes of individuals who are
in an employment-based nonimmigrant category (H-2A, H-2B, E-2) and
whose fitness, driver history, and qualifications can be reliably
verified and vetted.
This final rule is also consistent with the concurrent authorities
of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31131, et seq.), as
amended, and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 U.S.C. 31502), as
amended. The 1984 Act granted the Secretary broad authority to issue
regulations on ``commercial motor vehicle safety,'' including
regulations to ensure that ``commercial motor vehicles are . . .
operated safely'' (as amended and codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)).
This final rule is consistent with the safe operation of CMVs, as it
rectifies critical safety gaps in the CLP and CDL vetting and issuance
process as driving history has been cited consistently as a strong
predictor of future driving safety outcomes. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(2), the amendments contained in this rule will not
impose any ``responsibilities . . . on operators of commercial motor
vehicles [that would] impair their ability to operate the vehicles
safely'' because it relates only to obtaining, renewing, and upgrading
the credential that authorizes operation of CMVs, but does not have an
impact on the way in which a driver operates such vehicles after having
obtained the credential. This final rule does not implicate 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(3) or (4) as it does not directly address medical standards
for drivers (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects caused
by driving CMVs (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)). FMCSA does not anticipate that
this rule will result in the coercion of CMV drivers by motor carriers,
shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a CMV
in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs,
49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)). Limiting eligibility to those in certain
employment-based nonimmigrant statuses who undergo additional vetting
for dangerous driving history ensures that available drivers are less
likely to be coerced to violate the FMCSRs. By excluding unvetted
drivers who may be more prone to unsafe behaviors and thus more
susceptible to pressure to violate safety rules, this requirement
ensures the eligible driver population is less likely to be coerced.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation
may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a
motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operation.'' This final rule, which
addresses the ability of individuals who are domiciled in foreign
jurisdictions to operate CMVs in the United States, is related to the
safe operation of motor carrier equipment
[[Page 7047]]
because the CDL program is designed to ensure that only individuals who
have been determined by relevant State licensing agencies--in
accordance with Federal standards--to be qualified to operate large
commercial vehicles are allowed to drive such vehicles on the Nation's
roadways. Both identity verification and skills testing are integral to
the determination of a driver's qualifications and are implicated in
this rule.
The Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49 U.S.C.
113(f) and 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the
Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapters 311, 313, and 315 as they relate to CMV
operators, programs, and safety.
VI. Discussion of the IFR and Comments
A. Overview of the IFR
On September 29, 2025, FMCSA published in the Federal Register
(Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0622, 90 FR 46509) an IFR titled ``Restoring
Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses
(CDL).'' The agency also published a notice correcting an error in the
amendatory instructions of the IFR on October 2, 2025 (90 FR 47627).
The IFR revised the regulations that allow SDLAs to issue and renew
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals domiciled in a foreign
jurisdiction. The changes were intended to strengthen the security of
the CDL issuance process and enhance the safety of CMV operations.
FMCSA undertook the IFR based on both a spate of recent, fatal crashes
involving non-domiciled CDL holders and recently uncovered evidence of
systemic, nationwide regulatory non-compliance by SDLAs in their
issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs.
In the IFR, FMCSA amended its regulations to restrict issuance of
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals maintaining lawful
immigration status in the United States in certain employment-based
nonimmigrant statuses, to certain individuals domiciled in a U.S.
territory, and to individuals domiciled in a State that is prohibited
from the issuance of CLPs or CDLs as a result of the decertification of
the State's CDL program. The agency stated that the revisions were
intended to help ensure that individuals who do not have lawful
immigration status in the United States, and those who do have lawful
immigration status but whose status is not directly connected to a
legitimate, employment-based reason to hold a CDL, will no longer be
eligible to obtain non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs.
Specifically, the IFR made the following changes to the existing
regulations: (1) limiting individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs
and CDLs to those maintaining certain employment-based nonimmigrant
statuses, certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and
individuals domiciled in a State that is prohibited from issuing CLPs
or CDLs because the State's CDL program is decertified; (2) requiring
non-citizen applicants (except for lawful permanent residents) to
provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired Form I-94/I-94A
(Arrival/Departure Record) indicating a specified type of employment-
based nonimmigrant status at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and
upgrade action defined in the regulation; (3) requiring SDLAs to query
Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE), administered by
USCIS, to confirm the applicant's claim to be in lawful immigration
status in a specified category; (4) requiring that SDLAs retain copies
of the application documents for no less than two years; (5) requiring
the expiration date for any non-domiciled CLP or CDL to match the
expiration date of the Form I-94/I-94A or one year whichever is sooner;
(6) requiring the applicant to be present in-person at each renewal;
and (7) requiring an SDLA to downgrade the non-domiciled CLP or CDL if
the State becomes aware that the holder is no longer eligible to hold a
non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
The IFR took effect immediately upon publication. However, on
November 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued an Order in Lujan, et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier
Safety Admin., et al., No. 25-1215, administratively staying the
effective date of the IFR in response to two Petitions for Review
challenging the rule.\4\ The court subsequently stayed the IFR pending
resolution of those cases on November 13, 2025. Therefore, since
November 10, 2025, the previous regulations have been in effect.
Accordingly, FMCSA advised SDLAs to follow the procedures set forth in
the agency's regulations and guidance on non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs in
effect immediately prior to issuance of the IFR.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The first Petition for Review was filed on October 20, 2025
by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees;
the American Federation of Teachers; and two individual immigrant
truck drivers. The second Petition for Review was filed on October
22, 2025 by Martin Luther King, Jr. County in Washington. The court
consolidated the cases. Lujan, et al. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety
Admin., et al., No. 25-1215 (D.C. Cir.).
\5\ See e.g., <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/interim-final-ruling-restoring-integrity-issuance-non-domiciled-drivers-licenses-cdl">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/interim-final-ruling-restoring-integrity-issuance-non-domiciled-drivers-licenses-cdl</a>; <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/order-granting-administrative-stay-interim-final-rule-titled-restoring-integrity-issuance">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/order-granting-administrative-stay-interim-final-rule-titled-restoring-integrity-issuance</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments and Responses
FMCSA solicited comments concerning the IFR for 60 days ending
November 28, 2025. By that date, 8,010 comments were received. A
summary of the comments and FMCSA's responses follows.
1. Eligibility for Non-Domiciled CLPs or CDLs
a. Eligible Nonimmigrant Statuses (H-2A, H-2B, and E-2) and Vetting
Many commenters questioned FMCSA's rationale for limiting
eligibility for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals in H-2A, H-
2B, or E-2 nonimmigrant statuses. The Sikh Coalition wrote that FMCSA
failed to provide evidence that H-2A, H-2B, or E-2 visa holders are
safer drivers than those that are excluded by the rule. The Sikh
Coalition also wrote that the IFR claims H-2A, H-2B, or E-2 visa
holders go through additional employer screening but does not provide
any evidence to support this. The AFL-CIO and the Sikh Coalition argued
that FMCSA asserts that State regulations do not allow for vetting of
workers who have driving records in foreign jurisdictions, but the rule
exempts workers from short-term immigration programs who are even less
likely to have U.S. driving records than those groups that are not
eligible under the IFR. The Asian Law Caucus wrote that the population
of drivers being hired under the H-2A and H-2B programs are no more
likely to be drivers with safe driving records because the
qualifications of these drivers are required by Federal regulations to
be consistent with those of U.S. drivers, and because the employer
screening process highlighted in the IFR is primarily a means to screen
U.S. drivers, including those the IFR excludes.
US Custom Harvesters, Inc. expressed appreciation for FMCSA's
recognition of the critical needs that H-2A workers provide through
being issued CDLs and requested that FMCSA ensure that the exemption
for H-2A visa holders is retained. Two individuals asked how H-2A, H-
2B, and E-2 visa holders are eligible to drive semi-trucks safely.
Similarly, an individual asked how FMCSA can verify 10 years of driving
experience for H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
[[Page 7048]]
visa holders in their country of origin, and what makes these visa
categories safer than other categories. US Custom Harvesters, Inc.
stated that States are concerned regarding the issuance of CDLs for H-
2A holders and may have inadvertently begun pausing issuance to H-2A
holders; they requested confirmation from FMCSA that the H-2A program
is exempt. An individual stated that the driving records and criminal
records of H-2A visa holders are loosely monitored and recorded.
The Asian Law Caucus wrote that H-2A and H-2B visas are intended to
be temporary and seasonal in nature while limited to certain
geographical areas, but the IFR did not discuss how these limitations
will be applicable to commercial driving. United, LLC and an individual
said that visas should not be a registration requirement. Six
individuals wrote that non-domiciled CDL holders undergo the same
testing, training, and background verification processes as U.S.
citizen drivers, and the focus should be on ensuring all drivers meet
these standards rather than creating different rules based on
immigration status. CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom
wrote that FMCSA should collaborate with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of State to initiate a systematic
review of the framework overseeing and classifying employment-based
nonimmigrant statuses as they pertain to CDL eligibility to ensure
these designations cannot be abused as an indirect means to securing
commercial driving privileges.
An individual questioned the IFR's eligibility criteria, which
limit non-domiciled CDLs to holders of H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas. They
argued that this restriction was arbitrary and failed to account for
other categories of lawfully present individuals with work
authorization. An individual stated that the IFR does not provide a
clear rationale for excluding specific immigrant groups from operating
commercial vehicles, while allowing other individuals from treaty
countries who are associated with enterprises investing significant
capital in the United States to obtain CDLs. Another individual stated
that the rule ties eligibility to specific visa categories and document
types, which has an obvious disparate-impact potential and may be
challenged as discriminatory in practice if States apply it unevenly.
FMCSA Response
After considering the comments and information provided, FMCSA
declines to revise the scope of individuals eligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL from what was established in the IFR. The purpose
of this final rule is to enhance safety by rectifying a critical gap in
the Nation's non-domiciled licensing system that has manifested in two
ways. First, non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs have been issued to
individuals whose safety fitness cannot be adequately verified by
SDLAs. Second, FMCSA has uncovered evidence of systemic, nationwide
regulatory non-compliance by SDLAs in the issuance of non-domiciled
CLPs and CDLs, which shows the need for a revised issuance process
inclusive of a bright line standard that focuses on adequate vetting of
non-domiciled drivers. As explained in greater detail below, under this
final rule, all non-domiciled CLP and CDL drivers will be subject to
sufficient vetting to ensure that they are as safe as practicable
before allowing them to operate CMVs on our roadways, consistent with
FMCSA's statutory mandate to ensure the fitness of CMV operators.
In the IFR, FMCSA amended its regulations to restrict issuance of
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals maintaining lawful
immigration status in the United States in certain employment-based
nonimmigrant categories, to certain individuals domiciled in a U.S.
territory, and to individuals domiciled in a State that is prohibited
from the issuance of CLPs or CDLs as a result of the decertification of
the State's CDL program. FMCSA made these revisions to ensure that all
drivers of CMVs on our Nation's roadways are properly vetted to
maintain the highest level of safety practicable. Ultimately, the
changes made in the IFR, and affirmed in this final rule, rectify a
bifurcated safety standard in which U.S.-domiciled drivers are subject
to strict safety vetting, while permitting foreign-domiciled drivers to
operate under a demonstrably lower threshold for scrutiny, thereby
compromising public safety. More importantly, the final rule aligns the
issuance of non-domiciled CDLs with the statutory mandates to ``ensure
the fitness'' of CMV operators (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). It also ensures
consistent application of the laws disqualifying drivers--regardless of
whether they are domiciled or non-domiciled--from holding a CDL for a
specified period of time after committing certain offenses or serious
traffic violations, or having their driver's license revoked,
suspended, or canceled (49 U.S.C. 31310-31311). By restricting
eligibility to statuses subject to consular vetting and interagency
screening, FMCSA closes a significant safety gap and prioritizes the
safety of the traveling public.
The general concerns raised by commenters fail to recognize that
non-domiciled applicants have been subject to a lower level of scrutiny
in the CLP and CDL application process than U.S.-domiciled individuals
due to the severe limits on vetting their driving history. As noted
above, non-domiciled drivers are not required to surrender their
foreign license to obtain a non-domiciled CDL and may also operate in a
foreign country while their non-domiciled CDL is valid, and under the
previous regulations the SDLA would not have access to either the
driver's historical record or their concurrent driving record outside
the United States. The SDLA would not receive notifications of serious
traffic violations that occur in a foreign country during the validity
of the non-domiciled CDL, as they would if the violation occurs in a
State. Studies have shown that drivers who have a history of driving
offenses are more likely to be involved in future crashes. As explained
in greater detail in Section X.A below, driving history has been cited
consistently as a strong predictor of future driving safety outcomes.
In the Safety Performance of Passenger Carrier Drivers report, prior
crash involvement and past out-of-service violations were both found to
increase significantly the likelihood of a driver being involved in
future crashes.\6\ ATRI has published similar findings for the truck
transportation industry in their report, Predicting Truck Crash
Involvement. Repeated multiple times since 2005, the top five stable
predictors of crash risk include reckless driving violations and past
crashes.\7\ Similarly, the Commercial Driver Safety Risk Factors study
found that prior moving violations in the last three years were
associated with increased crash and moving violation risk.\8\ Finally,
an FMCSA commissioned literature review, Driver Issues: Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Literature Review, concluded that drivers with
prior crash involvement were 87 percent more likely to be involved in a
future crash.\9\ Together, these findings underscore a consistent
conclusion across studies: a driver's historical performance, whether
measured through crashes, violations, or
[[Page 7049]]
observable risky behaviors, provides a robust basis for predicting
future safety outcomes on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7</a>.
\7\ <a href="https://truckingresearch.org/2022/10/predicting-truck-crash-involvement-2022-update/">https://truckingresearch.org/2022/10/predicting-truck-crash-involvement-2022-update/</a>.
\8\ Commercial Driver Safety Risk Factors (CDSRF), available at
<a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49620">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49620</a>.
\9\ Driver Issues: Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Literature
Review, available at <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11259">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11259</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the link between a driver's safety history and overall
roadway safety, Congress mandated that SDLAs request information from
the National Driver Register and give ``full weight and consideration''
to that information in deciding whether to issue the individual a CDL
(49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(16)(B)). Further, FMCSA requires SDLAs to perform
additional screening of CDL applicants to ensure appropriate vetting.
In this regard, when a U.S.-domiciled driver applies for a CLP or CDL,
States are required to initiate and complete a check of the applicant's
driving record to ensure that the person is not subject to any
disqualification under 49 CFR 383.51, or any license disqualification
under State law, and does not have a driver's license from more than
one State or jurisdiction. (49 CFR 383.73(b)(3)). When a foreign-
domiciled applicant applies for a CLP or CDL, States are also required
to complete the same checks; however, information about a foreign-
domiciled applicants' driver history in the foreign country of domicile
are not accessible, because States do not have access to foreign
nations' systems.
SDLAs are required to initiate and complete four distinct checks of
the applicant's records. In this regard, States must check CDLIS to
determine whether the driver applicant already has been issued a CDL,
whether the applicant's license has been disqualified, and whether the
applicant has been disqualified from operating a CMV (49 CFR
383.73(b)(3)(ii)). Based on the information in CDLIS, the SDLA may
issue the license, promptly implement any disqualifications, licensing
limitations, denials, or other penalties required (49 CFR 384.205).
While CDLIS is the authoritative source of CDL records for each State,
it does not contain information on whether the foreign-domiciled
applicant is subject to any section 383.51- or 391.15-equivalent
disqualifications in the foreign country of domicile, or whether the
foreign-domiciled applicant has any license disqualifications under the
foreign country's laws. For example, CDLIS would contain information
about a CDL driver's conviction and disqualification for driving a
motor vehicle (commercial and non-commercial) while under the influence
of alcohol or a controlled substance, leaving the scene of an accident,
or reckless driving (49 CFR 383.51 (requiring a period of
disqualification upon conviction), 384.225 (requiring SDLAs to maintain
information on convictions and disqualifications on the CDLIS driver
record)). However, CDLIS would not contain any information about a
driver's conviction that occurred in a foreign country, or any
subsequent foreign driver's license suspension or disqualification.
Through the PDPS, which allows States to search the National Driver
Register, SDLAs must determine whether a driver has been disqualified
from operating a motor vehicle (other than a CMV) for any reason, or
had a license (other than a CDL) disqualified for cause in the three-
year period ending on the date of application, or has been convicted of
any offenses contained in 49 U.S.C. 30304(a)(3) (49 CFR 384.220; see
e.g., 49 CFR 383.73(b)(3)(iii)) to ensure that the applicant is not
subject to any of the sanctions under 49 CFR 383.51 based on previous
motor vehicle convictions. As noted above, Congress mandated that
States accord ``full weight and consideration'' to the information from
the National Driver Register in deciding whether to issue the
individual a CDL (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(16)(B)). PDPS does not contain the
foreign-domiciled applicant's driver history from the foreign country
of domicile.
States must also request the applicant's complete driving record
from all States where the applicant was previously licensed over the
last 10 years to drive any type of motor vehicle (49 CFR 384.206, see
e.g., 49 CFR 383.73(b)(3)(iv)). If, after reviewing this information,
the State discovers adverse information about the applicant, the State
may, among other actions, implement a disqualification, deny the CDL
transaction, or implement a licensing limitation (49 CFR
384.206(b)(3)). In the case of foreign-domiciled applicants for which
any portion of their driver history over the past 10 years was in a
foreign country or whose previous licenses were issued in foreign
countries, States are unable to check the driver's history because the
previous jurisdictions of licensure are not States but foreign
countries.
Finally, as of January 6, 2020, States must request information
from the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (DACH) (81 FR 87686). The DACH
is the central repository of FMCSA's DOT drug and alcohol use and
testing program violations, including but not limited to, a verified
positive DOT drug test result, a blood alcohol content of .04 or higher
on a DOT alcohol test, or a refusal to test violation (see generally,
49 CFR part 382, subpart B). Drivers who violate FMCSA's drug and
alcohol regulations are prohibited from operating a CMV until they
complete the return-to-duty process (see 49 CFR 382.503 and the cross
reference to 49 CFR part 40, subpart O), which includes evaluation by a
substance abuse professional, completion of prescribed education or
treatment, and a negative return-to-duty drug or alcohol test result.
If, in response to a DACH query, the SDLA receives notification that
the applicant is prohibited from operating a CMV due to a drug or
alcohol violation in the driver's DACH record, the State must not issue
the CDL (49 CFR 384.235, see e.g., 49 CFR 383.73(b)(10)). However, to
the extent an applicant's foreign country of domicile has a similar or
otherwise equivalent drug and alcohol testing program for commercial
drivers, the DACH would not contain any information about a foreign-
domiciled applicant's violations incurred under such a program.
Therefore, SDLAs would not have the benefit of this information in
assessing a driver's qualifications for a CDL.
The lack of available driving history information for non-domiciled
applicants severely limits the effectiveness of these vetting
processes. This inability to obtain driver history for non-domiciled
applicants creates an unacceptable bifurcated standard in driver
vetting and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a
commercial motor vehicle. While domestic CDL applicants face rigorous
history checks through CDLIS, PDPS, DACH, and other State driving
records, non-domiciled drivers were previously processed without
equivalent checks on their foreign driving history. This effectively
shielded unsafe driving behaviors, which may have included serious
violations, equivalent to one or more of the disqualifying offenses
listed in 49 CFR 383.51 (such as, driving a motor vehicle (commercial
and non-commercial) while under the influence of alcohol or a
controlled substance, leaving the scene of an accident, or reckless
driving, causing a fatality through negligent operation of a CMV), that
would have disqualified these drivers from obtaining a CLP or CDL,
simply because they occurred outside the review of FMCSA or the SDLAs.
To close this loophole, the IFR, as affirmed by this final rule,
restricts eligibility for foreign-domiciled CLP or CDL holders
exclusively to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 nonimmigrant status holders, as
these individuals are subjected to increased vetting, which provides a
more equivalent history check to those encountered by domestic CDL
applicants. FMCSA has determined that the totality of federal vetting
processes applicable to these visa categories--
[[Page 7050]]
including consular screening, labor certification requirements, and
employer verification--provides sufficient assurance of driver fitness
to mitigate the safety gap created by the SDLA's inability to access
and verify the foreign driving records. Certain eligible domiciliaries
in a U.S. territory and individuals domiciled in a State that is
prohibited from the issuance of CLPs or CDLs as a result of the
decertification of the State's CDL program, remain eligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL.
The relevant vetting that occurred through the visa application and
labor certification processes for the eligible nonimmigrant status
holders were thoroughly detailed in the IFR.\10\ In this regard, the H-
2A (Temporary Agricultural Workers), H-2B (Temporary Non-Agricultural
Workers), and E-2 (Treaty Investors) nonimmigrant categories require
either a labor certification through DOL, current employment, or other
specified proof of work established through the Federal visa process
(90 FR 46515). These requirements ensure that individuals in the United
States under these nonimmigrant categories are already approved to work
specific jobs that may require acquisition of a non-domiciled CDL.
Further, FMCSA understands that employer applications for labor
certifications related to commercial trucking typically include some
combination of the following job requirements: possess U.S. CDL or
foreign CDL equivalent, related work experience (12 months to 2 years),
clean driving record, pass drug or medical testing, and knowledge of or
proficiency in English. This employer screening, in addition to the
incentive to avoid unnecessarily repeating the lengthy job order
process, helps ensure that the population of drivers being hired under
one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories are more
likely to be drivers with safe driving records (90 FR 46516).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 90 FR 46515-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FMCSA has coordinated with the U.S. Department of
State regarding visa adjudication processes for H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
applicants seeking employment that requires CMV operation. The
Department of State has confirmed that consular officers adjudicating
such visa applications assess certain factors relevant to both visa
eligibility and CMV driver fitness, including but not limited to
driving history, occupational qualifications, and English language
proficiency. FMCSA's determination that these visa categories provide
sufficient vetting is based on the totality of the federal screening
process, including consular review, labor certification, and employer
attestations, rather than on any specific procedural requirements.
The U.S. Department of State procedures mitigate the safety gap
created by the unavailability of foreign driving records in two
essential ways. First, the enhanced vetting procedures facilitates the
consular officer's review of visa applicants' demonstration of their
ability to operate a CMV safely. These procedures serve as a functional
proxy for the vetting requirements in the FMCSRs for U.S.-domiciled
drivers. In determining whether an applicant has established the
requisite experience to operate a CMV safely, such that they are
eligible for the requested visa classification, the consular officer
reviews and requests evidence establishing whether the H-2A, H-2B, and
E-2 visa applicant has a history of unsafe driving, and other relevant
factors to the visa adjudication (e.g., whether they possess the
requisite years of experience listed for that particular job or hold a
valid CDL or can obtain one). The procedures, which are conducted as
part of the consular officer's determination under section 214(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) regarding whether the
applicant qualifies for the visa classification sought, further enable
the review of evidence that would demonstrate that the driver qualifies
for a CDL, which generally includes requests for 10 years of driving
history, past traffic violations, license suspensions and revocations,
and other similar records. The review assists in uncovering incidents
of dangerous driver behaviors similar to what would be revealed by the
SDLA's review of CDLIS, PDPS, DACH, and other State driving histories
outlined above.
Second, the enhanced screening and vetting procedures for H-2A, H-
2B, and E-2 visa applicants require an assessment of the applicant's
ability to meet the driver qualification requirements of 49 CFR
391.11(b)(2) to read and speak the English language sufficiently to
converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs
and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries,
and to make entries on reports and records. The consular officer's
assessment of English proficiency during the interview, while conducted
for purposes of determining visa eligibility, provides FMCSA with
reasonable assurance that non-domiciled drivers in these visa
categories possess the basic English proficiency necessary to operate a
CMV safely.
FMCSA's determination that H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders are
eligible for non-domiciled CDLs is based on several factors that, in
combination, provide reasonable assurance of driver fitness:
1. Labor Certification and Employer Screening: The DOL labor
certification process for the H-2A and H-2B categories requires
employers to list the qualifications necessary for the position, which
for CMV-related positions typically includes driving experience, clean
driving records, and English proficiency. Employers then screen workers
for these qualifications.
2. Consular Adjudication: During the visa application process,
consular officers have the authority to assess whether applicants meet
the qualifications for their intended employment, including the ability
to request and review documentation related to driving history and
occupational qualifications.
3. Ongoing Employment Relationship: In addition to the protocols
implemented by the Department of State to vet driving records for these
categories, H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders often maintain an ongoing
relationship with a U.S. employer who has a direct economic interest in
ensuring the driver's qualifications and safety record.
4. Federal Oversight: These visa categories are subject to ongoing
federal oversight through multiple agencies (DOL, DHS, State
Department) via the nonimmigrant status and visa renewal processes,
creating multiple points of verification and accountability. In
addition, as part of continuous visa vetting procedures, State
constantly reviews available information on current U.S. visa holders,
and revokes visas when there is an indication of a potential
ineligibility or in other situations where warranted. That could
include visa overstays, possible criminal activity, support for
terrorism, or any other indication of a potential ineligibility under
the INA.
While no single element of this process perfectly replicates the
CDLIS/PDPS/DACH checks available for domestic drivers, FMCSA has
determined that the totality of Federal vetting for these specific visa
categories provides a reasonable functional equivalent that adequately
addresses the safety gap.
Therefore, given the administrative inability for SDLAs to vet
foreign driving histories, it is the combination of Federal processes
applicable to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa holders--including labor
certification (for H-2A and H-2B visa applicants), consular
[[Page 7051]]
review, employer verification, and continuous vetting--that
collectively mitigate this safety gap. For these specific categories,
Federal interagency screening performs a background assessment that
serves as a functional equivalent for the driver history checks
required for domestic drivers, thereby allowing the agency to ensure
the fitness of the drivers. Because no other category of foreign-
domiciled driver is subject to this combination of labor certification,
employer sponsorship, and multi-agency Federal oversight, the rule
draws a necessary distinction based on the presence of multiple
mechanisms that can collectively compensate for the SDLA's inability to
verify foreign records. By relying on these combined Federal processes,
the agency strikes the most reasonable balance: allowing non-domiciled
drivers who have been federally vetted through multiple federal
screening processes to obtain licensure while ensuring the exclusion of
individuals with unknown driver histories who could have unsafe driving
histories that would otherwise disqualify them from obtaining a CDL or
would pose a significant safety risk on America's roadways.
The second safety gap addressed by this final rule is the systemic,
nationwide regulatory non-compliance by SDLAs in their issuance of non-
domiciled CLPs and CDLs. The majority of the SDLA errors as identified
by FMCSA as part of the APR process stem from the EAD-based eligibility
standard. The amended non-domiciled CLP and CDL issuance processes
prescribed in this final rule will mitigate SDLA confusion and errors
in issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. As discussed in greater detail
in Section VI.B.3 (Annual Program Reviews), FMCSA has identified more
than 30 States that failed to comply with the non-domiciled CLP and CDL
regulations. These States violated FMCSA's regulations by issuing tens
of thousands of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs that exceed the expiration
date of the driver's lawful presence documents; issuing non-domiciled
CDLs to individuals ineligible for that credential due to their status
as a citizen of Canada or Mexico not present in the United States under
the DACA program; issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs to lawful
permanent residents of the United States, who are eligible for regular
CDLs; and issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs without verifying the
drivers' lawful presence with the document required under 49 CFR
383.71(f)(2)(i) and 383.73(f)(3). As FMCSA noted in the IFR, when the
integrity of the non-domiciled CDL process is in question, the
credential itself is compromised and can no longer be trusted to verify
an individual's eligibility and qualifications.
b. EADs
CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom and many individual
commenters expressed support for the removal of existing accepted
documentation, like an EAD. An individual suggested that these changes
will protect the public, improve highway safety, and maintain fairness
for professional drivers. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) wrote that they supported changes to documentation
requirements, stating that improper and inconsistent protocols have led
to unqualified drivers on the road.
The AFL-CIO, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the
Potential Development Association, and many individuals opposed the
removal of existing accepted documentation and requested that FMCSA
amend the rule to allow explicitly people with valid EADs to continue
holding non-domiciled CDLs. An individual said that aligning CDL
eligibility to EAD status preserves safety while ensuring consistency
with INA 274A, and that asylum EADs are identical in format and legal
force to H-2A/H-2B EADs.
An individual stated that people with EADs are by definition
documented and are following an established legal process to eventual
naturalization. An individual stated that the EAD, by definition,
grants work authorization without restricting the type of job an
individual can pursue, and that the change creates an arbitrary and
unjust barrier, undermining the clear intent of the Federal
Government's work authorization process. Many individuals stated that
people with lawful residency have the right to work and deserve a fair
opportunity. DDL stated that it is unfair to deprive people of their
right to work when they have lived in this country for years, have
complied with all State and Federal requirements, and have demonstrated
the skills and knowledge necessary to operate safely. DDL said that
these individuals have proven themselves and should not be excluded
from the workforce simply because of their immigration category.
Some commenters said that commercial drivers with a valid EAD who
meet State and Federal requirements should be allowed to continue
driving. Washington Trucking Association wrote that many non-domiciled
drivers impacted by the IFR have valid EADs, extensive U.S. driving
histories, as well as safety and transportation credentials. Seven
individuals expressed that having an EAD should be sufficient to
qualify for a CDL, provided the applicant meets all safety and testing
requirements. One individual recommended allowing drivers with EADs to
continue renewing their license while their immigration status is being
processed.
An individual asked FMCSA to further explain why an EAD would no
longer be sufficient evidence for CDL eligibility.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with comments arguing that the regulations should
continue to permit drivers who hold an EAD to obtain a non-domiciled
CLP or CDL. As stated in the IFR, EADs are not sufficient documentation
to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. An EAD only serves as proof that
an individual is authorized to work in the United States for a specific
time period, not that the individual's safety fitness has been
thoroughly vetted and are drivers with safe driving records. The
individual receiving an EAD would not have been subject to the same
vetting to ensure safety fitness as those in the eligible employment-
based nonimmigrant statuses. Simply being authorized to work does not
adequately ensure that an individual has a safe driving history and
should be eligible to drive CMVs on roadways without additional
vetting. Allowing for an individual with an EAD to obtain a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL would continue the pre-IFR regulatory framework
that allowed unvetted drivers to operate CMVs on our Nation's roadways
which, as discussed throughout this final rule, is contrary to FMCSA's
mission and statutory duty to promote safety and ensure safety fitness
of individuals operating a CMV. Further, holding an EAD does not
entitle an individual to perform any type of work they choose
irrespective of safety implications or qualifications.
Critically, the agency cannot view the EAD as a valid proxy for
safety fitness because its issuance involves no assessment of
transportation safety. In contrast, the U.S. Department of State's
adjudication of H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas includes specific protocols
to assess driver history and qualifications. This Federal assessment
serves as the functional regulatory substitute for the State-level
driver history checks required for U.S.-based drivers. As SDLAs are
structurally incapable of performing these checks for foreign-domiciled
drivers, the agency must rely on the only available Federal substitute:
the U.S. Department of State vetting
[[Page 7052]]
process. Since EAD issuance lacks this specific transportation safety
component, accepting an EAD would require the agency to license drivers
without any verifiable safety history, significantly hampering its
ability to ensure fitness.
In addition to the EAD being insufficient to show that an
individual has been adequately vetted, FMCSA has seen that States have
had extreme difficulty appropriately issuing non-domiciled CLPs and
CDLs based on EADs. As stated in response to comments earlier in this
final rule, the 2025 APRs revealed a systemic collapse in State
compliance regarding EAD-based eligibility. With respect to foreign-
domiciled drivers, regulations in effect prior to September 29, 2025
IFR, and currently in effect, provide that States that issue non-
domiciled CLPs and CDLs to foreign-domiciled drivers may only accept as
valid proof of lawful presence (i) an unexpired employment
authorization document (EAD) issued by the USCIS or (ii) an unexpired
foreign passport accompanied by an approved I-94 form documenting the
driver's most recent admittance into the United States. Further, the
regulations require that States accept as valid only unexpired lawful
presence documents, which also means that the State must make the
period of validity of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL less than or equal
to the period of validity of the driver's lawful presence document(s).
In other words, because FMCSA's regulations considered only unexpired
lawful presence documents to be valid, States were required to ensure
that the non-domiciled CLP or CDL period of validity do not exceed the
expiration of the driver's lawful presence documents. Therefore, State
driver's licensing agencies are required to ensure that the validity of
non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs did not exceed the expiration date of
drivers' lawful presence documents. In addition, States may not issue a
non-domiciled CLP or CDL to citizens of Mexico or Canada, with the
exception of those present in the United States under the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The IFR identified six
States that were not compliant with non-domiciled requirements and that
number has now grown to more than 30 as of this final rule. Crucially,
the ability to verify an individual's status via SAVE did not prevent
this collapse. For example, States issued licenses with expiration
dates extending years beyond the dates verified in SAVE (e.g.,
California issued licenses four years past the EAD date). From FMCSA's
reviews, it has observed that front-line clerks at SDLAs cannot
reliably distinguish between EAD codes and language that indicate a
permissible basis for issuance of a non-domiciled CDL (C33--``Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals'') and those codes that indicate an
impermissible basis (C14--``Deferred Action'' or ``Alien Granted
Deferred Action''), as applied to drivers domiciled in Canada or
Mexico.
Further, FMCSA observed that SDLAs had significant challenges
interpreting various USCIS form letters, such as USCIS Form I-797C,\11\
Notices of Action, when presented by holders of EADs as supporting
documentation for EADs that were due to expire or had expired. EADs are
not valid indefinitely; they are valid for specified periods, and may
be renewed, or terminated based on various conditions being met.\12\
FMCSA frequently observed that when an applicant's EAD was due to
expire or had expired, the applicant would, upon applying or reapplying
for a non-domiciled credential, present an accompanying Form I-797C
with their application as nominal proof that the applicant's
eligibility for an EAD had been extended. FMCSA found that some SDLAs,
upon receiving the Form I-797C presented with the applicant's expiring
or expired EAD, accepted the Form I-797C as proof that the applicant's
eligibility for an EAD had been extended in fact, when in some
circumstances it had not, and subsequently issued non-domiciled
credentials based on a Form I-797C, instead of relying on the
documentation in 49 CFR 383.71(f)(2)(i) then in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Form I-797, Notice of Action exists in numerous
iterations (e.g., Form I-797C is one of seven other Forms I-797) and
USCIS uses it to ``communicate with applicants/petitioners or convey
an immigration benefit.'' <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions">https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions</a> (last visited Jan. 29,
2026).
\12\ 8 CFR 274a.13(b); 8 CFR 274a.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA never sanctioned the Form I -797C as a substitute for an
expired or expiring EAD for the purpose of non-domiciled CDL driver
licensing, nor did USCIS intend for the Form I-797C to supply the basis
for an SDLA to grant a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. Instead, USCIS uses
the Form I-797C, to notify applicants about the receipt or rejection of
an application or a petition, or to relay other important notices to an
applicant.\13\ The Form includes a header which states, `` `THIS NOTICE
DOES NOT GRANT ANY IMMIGRATION STATUS OR BENEFIT.' '' \14\ In fact, on
its website, USCIS reminds state, local, public, and private benefit
granting agencies that the Form I-797C is solely a receipt to prove an
applicant has submitted a request for a benefit and not a determination
that USCIS has deemed the applicant eligible for an immigration
benefit.\15\ In other words, a CLP or CDL applicant's mere presentation
of a Form I-797C, with an accompanying EAD was not proof that the
applicant had been granted an extension of immigration status. Yet,
during the 2025 APRs, FMCSA identified that some SDLAs, when presented
with an expiring or expired EAD along with an I-797C indicating the
applicant had applied for an immigration benefit (such as an extension
of the applicant's immigration status), would treat the I-797C as if
the applicant's application for extension in immigration status had
been granted and subsequently issue the non-domiciled CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions">https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions</a> (last visited Feb. 9, 2026).
\14\ <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-797c-notice-of-action">https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-797c-notice-of-action</a> (last visited Feb. 9, 2026).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This consistent failure across more than 30 States demonstrates
that the issue is not merely a training deficiency, but a structural
incompatibility with the administrative capabilities of an SDLA.
Further, the systemic breakdown in compliant non-domiciled CLP and CDL
issuance based on EADs defeats FMCSA's statutory mandate to prescribe
uniform standards for the issuance of CLPs and CDLs (49 U.S.C.
31308(a)). In fact, States' varying levels of compliance with the non-
domiciled CLP and CDL eligibility standards based on EADs has led to
national dis-uniformity in administering the non-domiciled CDL program.
Limiting eligibility strictly to the individuals in the employment-
based nonimmigrant categories from the IFR is the only way to restore
integrity and uniformity to the non-domiciled licensing process and
create a foolproof standard because those individuals can present I-94/
94As and foreign passports rather than EADs. The Form I-94 will clearly
display whether an individual's nonimmigrant status is in one of the
three categories allowed under this final rule (H-2A, H-2B, or E-2)
without having to decipher a separate code. The simplicity of the
information presented on the I-94 eliminates the need for front-line
SDLA personnel to decipher codes on an EAD, which are not clearly
identifiable to those without sufficient specified knowledge on what
each code means. Because States have demonstrated an inability to
correctly interpret those codes and process non-domiciled CLPs and CDLS
based on EADs correctly, FMCSA has determined that EADs should not be
treated as acceptable proof of identity and eligibility. The simplicity
of the
[[Page 7053]]
nonimmigrant status coding on the I-94 allows for front-line workers in
SDLAs to correctly determine an individual's nonimmigrant status
without having to undergo the same process of interpreting complex
codes.
c. Excluded Statuses
A joint submission of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and
Immigrants, Church World Service, IRC, Orel Alliance, RCUSA, and World
Relief (Joint Organization comment) stated that excluding refugees,
asylees, and humanitarian paroles from eligibility for non-domiciled
CDLs puts these groups at risk of ``financial devastation'' and would
severely harm the economy.
Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles wrote that FMCSA did not
provide sufficient evidence as to why only H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa
holders should be eligible for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL and the
rationale for the exclusion of other categories. An individual said
that other visa holders who have undergone rigorous U.S. visa vetting
and whose work authorization routinely depends on demonstrated
professional or managerial qualifications--such as L-1 intracompany
transferees, TN professionals, H-1B specialty workers, and O-1
individuals of extraordinary ability--find themselves categorically
excluded. The individual said that this exclusion lacks any safety-
based explanation in the preamble or regulatory text.
Two individuals said that the IFR should include derivative spouse
status which also authorizes employment such as E-2S. One individual
stated that because the rule does not explicitly mention E-2S status,
some SDLAs including Georgia Department of Driver Services are
interpreting this as ineligibility, and rejecting CDL and CLP
applications from E-2S spouses.
Numerous individuals expressed opposition to FMCSA restricting
immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from eligible
categories for CDL issuance and requested that FMCSA amend the
regulations to allow individuals with TPS to hold a CDL. An individual
stated that there is no evidence that drivers with TPS are less safe
than U.S. citizens. An individual suggested that FMCSA provide a
transitional or grandfather period for current CDL holders with valid
TPS. An individual stated that TPS holders undergo repeated DHS
vetting, and TPS is granted only when DHS determines that returning to
a person's home country would be unsafe due to war, disasters, or
humanitarian crises. The individual also said that many TPS
designations have existed for decades, meaning holders have lived and
worked legally in the United States long-term. Relatedly, Safety
Management Inc. stated that denying TPS recipients, authorized under
Federal law to pursue employment, the access to CDLs is discriminatory
and not justified by safety evidence.
An individual expressed support for the restriction against asylees
and asylum seekers receiving CDLs. Many individuals opposed the IFR and
requested that FMCSA allow asylees and asylum seekers to qualify for
non-domiciled CDLs. Two individuals provided multiple reasons to
preserve the eligibility of asylum seekers including the lawful
presence of asylum seekers, the need for drivers in the trucking
industry, the contributions of asylum seekers who become self-
sufficient due to work, and consistency with FMCSA goals. Two other
individuals stated that drivers with pending asylum cases have already
been vetted and cleared by U.S. authorities, and that there is no
evidence that these drivers are less safe than U.S. citizens.
Relatedly, Safety Management Inc. stated that denying asylum applicants
authorized under Federal law to pursue employment the access to CDLs is
discriminatory and not justified by safety evidence.
Another individual questioned how a person with only a temporary
work visa, such as H-2A, H-2B, and E-2, is allowed to drive a
commercial vehicle but an asylee who has a more permanent legal status
is excluded. Many individuals explicitly opposed the policy that the C8
status is not eligible for CDLs. Six other individuals discussed the
A05 category of EADs and said that it should be eligible to receive a
CDL. An individual said that A05 status is lawful, stable, and
federally protected. The commenter also said the rule violates
proportionality and administrative fairness because equating A05
holders with undocumented or pending asylum applicants, such as the C08
category, ignores the significant legal distinctions between the two.
The individual said that A05 holders should not be penalized for the
misconduct of others. The individual suggested that FMCSA distinguish
between approved asylees (A05) and pending asylum applicants (C08) when
determining CDL eligibility. An individual suggested that FMCSA allow
asylum seekers to receive a CDL on a one-year renewable basis, with
annual confirmation of immigration status, CDL class, and driving
record. The Joint Organization comment provided examples of how the IFR
is impacting asylees that these organizations work with.
Many individuals requested that FMCSA revise the IFR so that SDLAs
may continue issuing limited-duration non-domiciled CLPs/CDLs to
refugees.
Many individuals requested that FMCSA allow individuals with U4U
humanitarian parole status be eligible to receive a non-domiciled CDL.
An individual said that those with U4U status are legally allowed to
work, pay income taxes, contribute to social security and Medicare, and
participate in communities. The Joint Organization comment provided
examples of how the IFR is impacting humanitarian paroles under the U4U
programs that these organizations work with. An individual stated that
the IFR conflicts with DHS regulations because, according to DHS, the
commenter is lawfully present in the United States and is authorized to
work through at least April 19, 2026.
Asian Law Caucus, US Custom Harvesters, Inc., and many individuals
requested that the following categories be added to the IFR:
humanitarian parolees; lawful nonimmigrant statuses; E-3 visa holders;
J-1 visa holders; J-2 visa holders; U-visa holders; A10; Deferred
Enforced Departure; A19; I-797; Department of Labor Permanent Labor
Certification; crime victim visa applicants; trafficking survivors;
conditional permanent resident status; individuals with approved
petitions who are waiting on visa availability; legal immigrants with
significant professional experience operating heavy equipment;
individuals that are legally present; and permanent residents. Two
individuals suggested that FMCSA generally expand the list of
immigration and residency categories eligible to obtain a CDL.
Accion Opportunity Fund suggested that FMCSA consider a tiered
eligibility framework with enhanced verification for drivers outside of
the H-2A/H-2B/E-2 statuses, which would uphold FMCSA's safety and
integrity goals while preserving access for drivers. An individual
encouraged FMCSA to define clearly which nonimmigrant categories will
be eligible to ensure that applicants have sufficient notice and due
process to comply. Similarly, an individual said that the rule fails to
address other millions of lawful workers who hold alternative statuses
and contribute to the economy and supply chain.
In addition, the individual said that in the absence of comparative
crash-rate data, stakeholders cannot assess whether preventing L-1, TN,
H-1B, or O-1 holders from obtaining non-domiciled credentials
meaningfully advances highway safety. If FMCSA intends to maintain this
narrow eligibility window, the individual said
[[Page 7054]]
that it should ground its distinctions in measurable safety performance
metrics rather than in visa turnover characteristics or administrative
convenience.
Asian Law Caucus said the IFR does not explain why other
employment-based visa categories cannot now receive a non-domiciled CDL
or CLP, such as visa holders under the Program Electronic Review
Management process. Asian Law Caucus said these other visa categories
also have requirements the IFR mentions, such as labor certification
through DOL, current employment, or other specified proof of work
established through the Federal visa process. Asian Law Caucus also
said FMCSA did not adequately explain why employers generally are not
incentivized to screen for drivers with clean driving records and the
other positive characteristics given existing Federal requirements and
potential repercussions for the company, including enforcement actions
that FMCSA is authorized to bring.
TOSAM LLC stated that the inclusion of drivers with temporary
immigration statuses, such as temporary protected status (TPS) and
humanitarian parole, was ``overly broad.'' Similarly, another
individual said that a categorical visa ban is arbitrary, overbroad,
and punishes people who are legally present and authorized to work.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with commenters stating that eligibility for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL should extend beyond H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa
holders. FMCSA recognizes that there is a population of current non-
domiciled CDL holders who will no longer meet the eligibility standards
set forth in this final rule, as well as new drivers with a different
immigration status who will not be eligible. However, given the need
for non-domiciled CLP and CDL holders to be vetted properly, this final
rule limits individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to
those maintaining lawful immigration status in one of the following
employment-based nonimmigrant categories: H-2A, H-2B, or E-2, as well
as certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and individuals
domiciled in a State that is prohibited from issuing CLPs or CDLs
because the State's CDL program is decertified.
As explained in greater detail in section, VI.B.1.a. (Eligible
Nonimmigrant Statuses and Vetting), FMCSA closes a significant safety
gap and prioritizes the safety of the traveling public by restricting
eligibility to statuses subject to consular vetting and interagency
screening. This will correct the bifurcated safety standard in which
U.S.-based drivers are subject to strict safety vetting, while non-
domiciled drivers with an unknown foreign driving history are allowed
to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. By limiting eligibility for non-
domiciled CLP or CDL holders exclusively to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
nonimmigrant status holders, FMCSA ensures that as these individuals
are subjected to increased vetting, which provides a more equivalent
history check to those encountered by domestic CDL applicants. No other
category of visa applicants is subject to enhanced vetting assessing
driver history in foreign jurisdictions. As explained previously, the
vetting that occurs through the visa application and labor
certification processes for the H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 nonimmigrant
categories ensure that these individuals are already approved to work
specific jobs that may require acquisition of a non-domiciled CDL.
Further, the required employer screening, in addition to the incentive
to avoid unnecessarily repeating the lengthy job order process, helps
ensure that the population of drivers being hired under one of the
specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories are more likely to
be drivers with safe driving records (90 FR 46516).
In addition, the U.S. Department of State's procedures for
increased driver history screening and vetting of H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
visa applicants seeking to operate CMVs in the United States provide
additional safety checks. In this regard, the enhanced vetting
procedures ensures that applicants are capable of safe operation of a
CMV, requires applicants to provide evidence to show the applicant has
the ability and experience required to operate a CMV, and requires that
applicants possess the basic English skills necessary to operate a CMV
safely.
The U.S. Department of State's enhanced screening and vetting
procedures bridges the safety gap between the differences in vetting
for U.S.-domiciled and foreign-domiciled drivers for H-2A, H-2B, and E-
2 visa applicants. These enhanced driver history vetting procedures are
required for H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa applicants only, and no other
category of foreign-domiciled driver is subject to them. Notably, the
mere status of holding other employment-based visas, such as an H-1B or
L-1, does not supply the agency with the necessary data to ensure
safety fitness of those drivers. Unlike the H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
categories, other visa adjudications focus strictly on professional
qualifications, not enhanced vetting of driver history and safety.
Consequently, possessing a valid visa in another category offers the
agency no visibility into the applicant's foreign driving record. With
the specific U.S. Department of State safety vetting acting as a
functional proxy for driver history vetting, the agency is able to
fulfill its statutory fitness mandate to a level that is more
equivalent to the level established for U.S.-domiciled drivers.
Therefore, because H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa applicants are the only
categories of foreign-domiciled drivers currently subject to the U.S.
Department of State's enhanced driver history screening and vetting
procedures, FMCSA declines to extend non-domiciled CLP and CDL
eligibility to other immigration categories.
d. DACA
Numerous individuals expressed opposition to FMCSA restricting DACA
recipients from eligible categories and stated that DACA recipients
should be able to obtain non-domiciled CDLs. Two individuals also
suggested that DACA recipients with CDLs should be grandfathered into
the regulations. Two individuals also requested that FMCSA grant an
exemption permitting DACA recipients with EADs to obtain and hold Class
B passenger-vehicle CDLs under the same conditions as other lawfully
authorized individuals under 49 CFR 389.31. Two individuals stated that
FMCSA failed to present data demonstrating that DACA-based CDL holders
posed a distinct safety threat in comparison to other classes of
drivers. An individual stated that excluding DACA recipients from the
IFR without rigorous crash or performance analysis is arbitrary. The
individual also recommended that FMCSA allow DACA-based CDL holders to
continue renewals until a safe replacement path is created. An
individual stated that in 2023 FMCSA issued guidance stating that SDLAs
may issue non-domiciled CDLs to DACA recipients under certain
conditions. The individual said that nothing about their lawful
presence or work authorization has changed since then, and changing
course now is ``inconsistent, unfair, and will unnecessarily push
responsible drivers out the workforce.''
An individual said that DACA recipients should be allowed to obtain
CDLs for three basic reasons: (1) they are legally authorized to work
and are already vetted by Federal immigration authorities; (2) CDLs are
governed by strict Federal tests and medical standards that apply
equally to all applicants; and (3) excluding a class of
[[Page 7055]]
authorized workers will harm safety oversight and worsen driver
shortages. Another individual said that DACA recipients are
fundamentally different from many other non-domiciled applicants in
that they graduated from a U.S. high school, maintain a clear record as
a prerequisite for DACA renewal, and have long-term ties to U.S.
communities. Because of these requirements, the individual said that
DACA holders already meet or exceed the safety and integrity standards
FMCSA seeks to ensure.
FMCSA Response
After considering the comments and information submitted, FMCSA
determines that the final rule will remain as set forth in the IFR with
respect to DACA recipients. DACA recipients are reliant on EADs and are
therefore limited by the significant problems associated with that
document in the non-domiciled licensing process. DACA recipients may
have the ability to obtain other Federal identification documents, such
as a social security card, or other photo identifications, such as a
State license. However, there is no form of federally issued photo
identification that can verify both their status and authorization to
work outside of the EAD. Ultimately, the problems associated with
SDLA's use of the EAD in the non-domiciled application process, as
documented throughout this final rule, make it impracticable for FMCSA
to allow for DACA recipients to be eligible for a non-domiciled CLP or
CDL. As stated above, SDLAs have been unable to reliably distinguish
between those codes and language on an EAD which indicated a
permissible basis for issuance of a non-domiciled CDL and those that
indicated an impermissible basis, which has led to improper issuance of
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. Even if the agency limited the use of EADs
to DACA recipients, the systemic inability of SDLAs to issue non-
domiciled CLPs or CDLs with an EAD properly would result in the
improper issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals who are
not DACA recipients, but may appear to be one to a front-line SDLA
clerk who cannot accurately distinguish whether an EAD code is a
permissible basis for issuance of a non-domiciled CDL to a DACA
recipient. This would continue the confusion surrounding EADs from the
pre-IFR regulations and create the same problems with the improper
issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs that the IFR and this final
rule have sought to address.
In addition, DACA recipients' unique status presents a fundamental
conflict with the non-domiciled CLP and CDL issuance process. As FMCSA
has made clear, CDLs are high-value, long-term credentials. DACA
reflects an exercise of Executive Branch discretion that temporary and
revocable in a way that the employment-based nonimmigrant statuses
specifically provided by statute are not. Excluding DACA mitigates the
safety risk of invalid CDLs remaining in circulation should the status
of non-domiciled CDL holders change.
The arguments regarding DACA recipients are further undercut by the
fact that citizens of Mexico and Canada who are present in the United
States under the DACA program have never been eligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL under FMCSA's regulations. This distinction is
critical because, according to USCIS, approximately 80 percent of DACA
recipients are citizens of Mexico.\16\ In this regard, 49 CFR
383.23(b)(1) states that the only drivers permitted to obtain non-
domiciled CDLs are those not from ``a jurisdiction that the
Administrator has determined tests drivers and issues CDLs in
accordance with, or under standards similar to, the standards [adopted
by FMCSA] . . . so long as that person meets the requirements of Sec.
383.71(f).'' The regulation categorically excludes all other
individuals. This necessarily includes individuals domiciled in Canada
and Mexico, footnote one to section 383.23(b)(1) explains, because
Mexico and Canada are jurisdictions for which the Administrator has
issued an equivalency determination and entered into a reciprocity
agreement. Nonetheless, FMCSA exercised its enforcement discretion in
2023 to publish guidance advising States that they may issue a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL, using the procedures under 49 CFR 383.73(f)(2),
to individuals who are citizens of Mexico and present in the United
States under the DACA, provided that the applicants meet the
requirements of 49 CFR 383.71(f)(2) and do not hold, and have never
held, a Licencia Federal de Conductor issued by Mexico.\17\ Since
issuing that guidance, FMCSA has further exercised its enforcement
discretion to recognize an exception from the regulatory prohibition
for citizens of Canada. It was solely by virtue of FMCSA's non-
enforcement posture, issued less than three years ago, that States were
allowed to issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to Mexican and Canadian
DACA recipients without receiving a finding of noncompliance. FMCSA
acts well-within its authority to alter the agency's recent non-
regulatory enforcement posture with respect to these drivers,
particularly in light of the systemic noncompliance uncovered by the
APRs. This final rule rescinds the 2023 guidance on the eligibility of
Mexican DACA recipients for a non-domiciled CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ According to USCIS data, more than 80 percent of
individuals present in the United States under DACA are from Mexico,
as of June 20, 2025. See <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/active_daca_recipients_fy2025_q3.xlsx">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/active_daca_recipients_fy2025_q3.xlsx</a>.
\17\ See <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Freely Associated States
Several individual commenters requested that citizens of Freely
Associated States (FAS) be admitted to the eligible categories allowed
to receive a non-domiciled CDL. The Embassy of the Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM) said that as drafted, the IFR does not mention the
FSM, fails to reflect the agreements between the governments, and
incorrectly limits opportunities for FSM citizens who are legally
authorized to work in the United States. The Embassy of the Federated
States of Micronesia said that an FSM citizen's stay in the United
States is not limited to any period of authorized stay or duration of
stay, does not require reapplication for retention, and is perpetual,
therefore, the commenter said that the status of FSM citizens living in
the United States is closer to lawful permanent residents than to
individuals with a temporary immigration status. In addition, the
Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Embassy of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United States of America said
that FAS citizens are not required to obtain a visa to work in the
United States, and therefore do not have the documentation required by
the IFR to access a non-domiciled CDL. Similarly, an individual
requested that States receive training on handling legal documents
presented by individuals to renew or obtain a CDL because Compact of
Free Association (COFA) and FAS citizens do not require a visa and do
not have expiration dates on their I-94s.
The Embassy of the Republic of Palau and the Embassy of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United States of America said
that under the IFR, 49 CFR 383.5(2) requires CDL applicants domiciled
in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any of
the three other U.S. territories to supply as evidence of lawful
immigration status ``any of the documents specified in Table 1 of
section 383.71,'' which limits proof of status for non-citizen lawful
permanent residents to a ``valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card,
issued by the
[[Page 7056]]
USCIS or INS.'' The Embassy of the Republic of Palau said that Palauan
citizens do not need and are not issued a Permanent Resident Card to
reside in U.S. territories lawfully. In recognition of the unique
status of Palauan and other COFA citizens, they suggested that FMCSA
include a new row in Table 1 of Sec. 383.71 to address the COFA
citizen population and indicate that their proof of status requirement
could be satisfied by an unexpired passport along with a Form I-94/94A.
The Embassy of the Republic of Palau stated that Palauan citizens
may enter and live in the United States on a habitual basis with only
an unexpired passport, and that upon admission to the U.S., Palauan
citizens are issued a Form I-94, but this documentation does not name a
specified employment-based status. The Embassy of the Republic of Palau
said that requiring such a notation would be inconsistent with the
bilateral agreement that the United States has entered into with Palau,
as integrated into U.S. domestic law, which does not premise entry into
the United States on any employment justification. The Embassy of the
Republic of Palau suggested that the evidence of lawful presence
contained in 49 CFR 383.5 could be expanded to include:
``an unexpired Form I-94/94A issued by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security indicating one of the following classifications:
H-2A-Temporary Agricultural Workers, H-2B-Temporary Non-Agricultural
Workers, or E-2-Treaty Investors; or an acceptable Form I-94/94A
under the Compact of Free Association between the United States and
the nation that issued the passport. The appropriate 1-94
Classifications for Freely Associated States are in the case of the
Palau: CFAIPALJ.''
The Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia suggested that
the definition of ``evidence of lawful immigration status'' at section
383.5 could read:
``An unexpired Form l-94/94A issued by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security indicating one of the following classifications:
H-2A-Temporary Agricultural Workers, H-2B-Temporary Non-Agricultural
Workers, or E-2-Treaty Investors; or an acceptable Form l-94/94A,
documenting the applicant's most recent admission to the United
States under the Compact of Free Association between the United
States and the nation that issued the passport. The appropriate 1-94
Classifications for Freely Associated States are as follows: CFA/
FSM, CFA/RMI, and CFA/PAL.''
The Embassy of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the United
States of America suggested the following definition:
``An unexpired Form I-94/94A issued by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security indicating one of the following classifications:
H-2A-Temporary Agricultural Workers, H-2B-Temporary Non-Agricultural
Workers, or E-2-Treaty Investors; or an acceptable Form I-94/94A
under the Compact of Free Association between the United States and
the nation that issued the passport. The appropriate I-94
Classifications for Freely Associated States are in the case of the
RMI: CFAIMJSJ.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA understands the lawful presence status of Citizens of the
FAS. This final rule does not include a specific carve-out for Citizens
of the FAS. Those individuals are currently subject to an existing
exemption \18\ and a pending exemption application.\19\ Due to their
relationship with the United States through the COFAs, FMCSA will
continue to address this population through those processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 89 FR 78428 (Sep. 25, 2024).
\19\ 89 FR 73744 (Sep. 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Legal Basis and Agency Authority
a. Congressional Authority
The Oregon Department of Transportation challenged FMCSA's
statutory authority to issue the IFR given that ``CDL issuance is a
transportation safety function, not an immigration enforcement
mechanism.'' An individual echoed these sentiments, stating the IFR
exceeds statutory authority under the Motor Carrier Safety Act by
transforming CDL regulation into immigration enforcement. Another
individual reasoned that because FMCSA's authority is limited to
promoting uniform safety standards and does not include enforcing
immigration policy, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of DHS, the IFR
exceeds FMCSA's authority.
Similarly, the Asian Law Caucus, writing that ``the statutory
authorities cited by FMCSA do not list or allude to `immigration
status' or `visa category' as a basis for restricting'' the issuance of
CDLs, concluded that FMCSA ``regulate[d] in areas beyond its purview''
in issuing the IFR. A joint submission from the Attorneys General of
Massachusetts, California, and 17 Other Jurisdictions \20\ (joint AG
comment) also questioned FMCSA's reliance on statutes related to driver
testing and fitness, safety standards for operation of vehicles, and
governance of the CDL program to program to exclude entire classes of
drivers categorically based on immigration status. Citing INS v.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), three individuals asserted it held that
immigration classifications must originate from Congress. Citing FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., four individuals said the Court
upheld that an agency (FDA) lacked authority to regulate in an area
(tobacco products) where Congress had never clearly delegated such
power. Referencing the book Over Ruled, in which Supreme Court Justice
Neil Gorsuch ``warned that unchecked agency power leads to overreach
and undermines democracy,'' another individual stated that the IFR is
an example of such overreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The full list of jurisdictions from the joint Attorneys
General comment are as follows: Massachusetts, California, Arizona,
Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai`i, Illinois,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), multiple
individuals asserted that agencies cannot develop rules of major
economic and political significance without clear Congressional
authorization. Citing Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007), another individual said that
FMCSA does not have the statutory authority to invoke terrorism or
national security concerns.
Cautioning that in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), agencies
must adhere to Congress' language exactly to avoid the risk of legal
challenges (e.g., litigation brought under the Equal Access to Justice
Act), an individual asserted that the statutes FMCSA cites as authority
for the IFR are not applicable. Specifically, the individual stated
that the statutes in question relate to the safe operation of CMVs, but
FMCSA has not established a clear correlation between immigration
status and safety. Accion Opportunity Fund and three individuals
asserted that the agency exceeded its statutory authority by
restricting, without Congressional approval, the rights of lawfully
present asylees to obtain, renew, and use CDLs. Two individuals
suggested the agency should rescind the IFR because it exceeds
statutory authority.
Citing Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), two individuals
asserted that only Congress possesses the plenary power to set
distinctions for immigrants and agencies cannot unilaterally impose new
restrictions. Citing the Supremacy Clause alongside Arizona v. United
States 567 U.S. 387 (2012), Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941),
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992), and De
Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), several individuals wrote that
Federal laws enacted by Congress take precedence over agency rules,
meaning FMCSA cannot impose new conditions that negate those rights.
Accion Opportunity Fund and two
[[Page 7057]]
individuals stated that the IFR's categorical limitation of CDLs to
only those immigrants with H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas rewrites the
statute's eligibility terms without Congressional direction. Moreover,
two individuals said that excluding EAD holders, asylees, and refugees
from CDL eligibility unlawfully deprives those groups of employment
rights guaranteed by Congress. In addition, an individual asserted that
employment status is permanent and the IFR transforms permanent status
into temporary status. Citing Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573
U.S. 302 (2014), Accion Opportunity Fund and an individual said the
agency may not tailor unambiguous statutes to suit policy preferences.
Citing Loper Bright v. Raimondo, two individuals stated that agency
reinterpretations of law receive no judicial deference.
While agreeing that FMCSA's authorizing statute ``only allows
separation by classes of vehicles driven and not by point of origin or
any status of immigration or entry,'' an individual supportive of the
IFR suggested that to avoid a court challenge on this basis, ``the
underlying statute should be amended to explicitly allow for this.'' In
contrast, another individual wrote that FMCSA possesses clear statutory
authority to issue the IFR, reasoning that Congressional authorization
to regulate non-domiciled CDLs, including to ensure the fitness of
drivers, permits the IFR as a direct exercise of congressionally
delegated authority. Citing the 9/11 Commission Report and a 2004 DOT
management advisory, the individual asserted that identity verification
and immigration status confirmation are both warranted and a reasonable
interpretation of FMCSA's statutory mandate. The individual concluded
that the IFR complies with Loper Bright v. Raimondo because it is ``a
straightforward application of unambiguous statutory authority rather
than an aggressive interpretation requiring deference.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with comments claiming that the agency acted beyond
its authority in issuing the IFR. Through the CMVSA, Congress provided
the agency with the authority to prescribe regulations for ensuring the
fitness of a CMV operator (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)) as well as regulations
on minimum uniform standards for the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs (49
U.S.C. 31308)). Under this authority, FMCSA has the discretion to
define the parameters of eligibility. The agency also has broad
authority to issue regulations to ensure that CMVS are operated safely
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)). Further, under 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(B)(ii),
States are authorized to issue non-domiciled CDLs, but they must do so
in accordance with regulations prescribed by FMCSA. The rule is both an
authorized and reasonable exercise of the agency's statutory authority
to regulate non-domiciled CDL issuance in the interest of highway
safety. It is also consistent with the intent of 49 U.S.C. 31310(k),
which explicitly provides that drivers licensed by an authority outside
of the United States or foreign citizens operating CMVs in the United
States are subject to the same disqualification requirements as
domestic CMV drivers. Ensuring the safety of our Nation's roadways is
FMCSA's mission and top priority. By aligning the final rule's
eligibility requirements with the nonimmigrant statuses that undergo
enhanced consular vetting and interagency screening which serves as a
functional proxy for driver history vetting by the SDLAs, the agency is
fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the fitness of all
drivers who operate a CMV.
Passing the knowledge and skills tests are just two components of
showing that a person is a safe and fully qualified driver. Under
section 12009(a)(6) and (20) of the CMVSA (codified at 49 U.S.C.
31311(a)(6) and (16)), Congress made clear that an integral part of
determining an individual's qualifications was for the State to review
the individual's driver history record. Specifically, States are to
request the driving record from any other State that has issued a
driver's license to the individual, consult the national driver
registry maintained under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 303, and give full weight
and consideration to the information in deciding whether to issue the
individual a CDL. The States' inability to access a single, reliable
driving record for CDL applicants was, in fact, described by the agency
as a ``major area of concern'' to be addressed in early versions of
minimum standards promulgated under the Act (52 FR 20574, 20576 (June
1, 1987)). The records check has been and remains an important part of
the process for determining whether an individual is qualified to
operate a CMV safely. Moreover, the rule promotes uniform safety
standards because it helps the agency ensure that the driver history
vetting of foreign-domiciled drivers is comparable, and therefore more
uniform to, the driver history vetting of U.S.-domiciled drivers.
b. Federal Law
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
and numerous individuals wrote that the IFR conflicts with EAD holders'
right to work as authorized by DHS under the INA. An individual stated
that excluding EAD holders from eligibility for CDLs goes against the
Federal definition of ``lawful presence.'' Similarly, an individual
described the legal framework for work authorization and critiqued the
IFR for nullifying the authorization that DHS has granted individuals
who are in the United States lawfully. Three individuals asserted that
a ban on entire groups of immigrants who already possess lawful work
authorization under INA exceeds the bounds of permissible regulation.
An individual asserted that under INA, refugees and asylees are
eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status after one year
of residence, effectively aligning their labor rights with those of
lawful permanent residents, even before the adjustment, since Congress
guaranteed them employment authorization.
Many individuals said the IFR conflicts with Federal immigration
authority under DHS. Specifically, three individuals asserted that the
IFR creates a conflict between Federal transportation law and existing
immigration law by treating EAD holders as non-domiciled despite
Federal law recognizing them as lawfully present and employable.
Expressing concerns about Federal supremacy and preemption, an
individual asserted that FMCSA's attempt to reclassify individuals with
EADs as ineligible to work is legally impermissible. Two individuals
stated that USCIS guidance says EAD holders have indefinite work
authorization because their immigration status does not expire. Another
individual expressed concerns that the rule undermines the Federal
verification process established under SAVE, which the REAL ID Act of
2025 designates as the sole mechanism for confirming lawful presence.
An individual cited U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that it is
impermissible for agencies to issue regulations that are in direct
conflict with Federal law (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387
(2012); Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011); U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529
U.S. 120 (2000)). The commenter questioned whether every Federal agency
could adopt its own ``immigration filters'' if
[[Page 7058]]
FMCSA can override DHS determinations as to work authorization.
Numerous individuals stated that they are immigrants with legal
status in the United States, such as pending immigration cases with
valid work authorizations, and therefore are lawful CDL holders.
Multiple individuals questioned why immigrants with the legal right to
live and work in the United States will no longer be able to obtain a
CDL. Two individuals said that barring individuals with lawful presence
and work authorization from accessing CDLs contradicts the CMVSA's
purpose of promoting uniform driver qualification standards.
An individual requested rescission of the IFR because it creates
inter-agency conflict undermining constitutional separation of powers.
Similarly, an individual suggested the agency withdraw the IFR,
harmonize its regulatory definitions with DHS policy, and reaffirm CDL
eligibility for all lawfully authorized drivers under TPS and EAD
holder categories to preserve the integrity of the Federal licensing
framework, and protect lawful workers. One individual requested that
DOT align the IFR with Federal immigration law. Another individual
requested a coordinated interagency approach with DHS, consistent with
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 section 6(b)(2), to restore legal
coherence, to uphold humanitarian protections, and to ensure that
Federal transportation policy remains aligned with the rule of law.
In contrast, America First Legal Foundation commented that the IFR
promotes road safety by ensuring compliance with existing Federal
regulations, such as the requirement that commercial drivers have
proficiency in English, which the commenter said have been
significantly underenforced for some time. The America First Legal
Foundation concluded that the IFR is needed to ensure the public that
commercial drivers ``will be able to interact well with law
enforcement, fully and quickly understand signs indicating rules of the
road, and accordingly safely drive their large commercial vehicles on
American roads.''
Citing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, an individual stated
that it requires transparency in all forms of influence and that if
undisclosed contacts or quid pro quo arrangements are present, this may
implicate 18 U.S.C. 201 (bribery of public officials) and 18 U.S.C.
1343 and 1346 (fraud and honest services fraud). The individual noted
that Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), clarified that
``honest services fraud includes situations where officials act against
the public interest in favor of private gain'' and remarked that, under
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), Federal
agencies must act as trustees on behalf of the public and serve the
public good. Further, citing Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238
(1936), the individual asserted that regulatory capture is present in
this IFR and FMCSA is serving the interests of the motor carrier
industry rather than the public, which is an abuse of delegated
authority.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA continues to emphasize this regulatory action is consistent
with authorizing statutes concerning the establishment of safety rules
and that in exercising its authority to strengthen the integrity of the
CDL program, the agency's actions are not in conflict with Federal
immigration law. The agency's actions have been transparent, lawful,
and in the public interest. As discussed above, the rule is both an
authorized and reasonable exercise of the agency's statutory authority
to ensure safety fitness and regulate non-domiciled CDL issuance in the
public interest of highway safety. Though the rule references certain
immigration statuses, it does so only insofar as they relate to helping
the agency ensure safety fitness and that the driver history vetting of
foreign-domiciled drivers is comparable, and therefore more uniform to,
the driver history vetting of U.S.-domiciled drivers.
Regarding claims that FMCSA exceeded the bounds of permissible
regulation by nullifying the lawful work authorization that DHS has
granted individuals or that Congress has guaranteed to refugees and
asylees after one year of residence, FMCSA believes that these claims
overstate the authorization granted or guaranteed. A work authorization
does not grant an individual a guaranteed right to work in any position
of employment he or she chooses, regardless of whether he or she is
qualified for that employment. It would be dangerous for a State to
issue a CLP or CDL to an individual without ensuring that the
individual had been fully vetted for a safe driving record. This danger
is present, regardless of truck driving being a private economic
activity, rather than a governmental function. Under the revised
regulations, FMCSA ensures the fitness of non-domiciled drivers by
limiting eligibility to those in specified nonimmigrant statuses who
are subject to rigorous driver history checks that SDLAs are incapable
of performing independently.
c. Equal Protection and Civil Rights
Multiple individuals critiqued the IFR for failing to provide equal
protection as required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Many of the individuals concluded that the IFR violates
equal protection requirements by discriminating against certain classes
of immigrants. Likewise, three individuals asserted that the IFR is
unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment in
treating similarly situated drivers differently by allowing U.S.
citizen CDL holders to continue driving while immigrant drivers with
valid EADs cannot. Citing City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,
Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985), an individual asserted that the IFR
violates the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring States to treat
``similarly situated individuals differently without a legitimate
governmental interest.''
An individual asserted that by creating two groups (U.S. citizens,
lawful permanent residents, and people in certain visa categories who
are eligible for CDLs; and EAD holders who are excluded from CDLs), the
IFR violates equal protection principles applied to Federal actions.
The individual further asserted that FMCSA has not provided a rational
connection between EAD status and highway safety, provides no empirical
data, and is noncompliant with the Information Quality Act. The
individual cited judicial precedent in several cases where courts
invalidated rules based on unsupported assumptions (Int'l Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan, 722 F.2d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1983);
Allentown Mack Sales v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998); Michigan v. EPA, 576
U.S. 743 (2015)).
In addition, two individuals raised concerns about the IFR
violating the Equal Employment Opportunity Act through discrimination
on the basis of immigration status. Three individuals stated that the
rule raised equal protection concerns by discriminating against
lawfully present non-citizens. Citing Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v.
Brewer, 855 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2017) and Rodriguez v. P&G, 338 F. Supp.
3d 1283, one of the individuals stated that courts have held that
policies refusing to issue driver's licenses to lawfully present
aliens, including DACA recipients, violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Five individuals said that the IFR is discriminatory and
constitutionally invalid.
The American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) and numerous individuals stated that the IFR is
not safety policy,
[[Page 7059]]
but rather discrimination based on national origin. Numerous
individuals discussed that the IFR impacts immigrant or non-English
speaking drivers disproportionately. Two individuals asserted that the
IFR undermines the rule of law, erodes public trust in government
institutions, and violates both U.S. constitutional principles and
international human rights obligations by instituting administrative
discrimination disguised as safety regulation. Citing Village of
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252
(1977), another individual said the IFR includes unconstitutional
policies motivated by hidden discriminatory intent. Similarly, three
individuals stated that using safety as a pretext for discrimination is
impermissible, citing Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct.
2551 (2019). Some individuals said that the IFR could be considered a
discriminatory measure by limiting access to a means of livelihood for
a specific population without offering alternatives.
Citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), three individuals
reasoned that immigration status alone is not a sufficient basis for
denying access to fundamental rights without compelling justification.
In terms of the IFR, the individuals asserted that justification is
absent as immigration status has no connection to road safety, which is
already covered by law through medical exams, skills testing, and
professional qualification standards. Also citing Plyler v. Doe, three
individuals said that the government cannot impose lifelong burdens on
children due to their parents' immigration status.
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), three individuals
wrote that applying a neutral law in a discriminatory manner violates
equal protection. Also citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, an individual stated
that by stripping lawful immigrant drivers with spotless safety records
of CDLs, FMCSA is punishing their status, not their conduct, and
violating equal protection principles. Similarly, an individual stated
that imposing categorical restrictions without evidence that
citizenship correlates with safety raises concerns of unequal
protection and selective enforcement. Some individuals added that the
equal employment opportunity principle provides that no person who is
lawfully authorized to perform a job should be discriminated against
based on citizenship or immigration status.
Several individuals asserted that the IFR raises due process
concerns under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Citing
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), five individuals asserted that
the Fifth Amendment extends the principle of equal protection to
actions of the Federal Government, including the IFR. Similarly, Safety
Management Inc. and many individuals asserted that the IFR violates the
Fifth Amendment by denying due process and equal protection. An
individual said the IFR ``serves no compelling interest related to
safety'' and ``broadly exclude[es] EAD holders regardless of record or
experience.'' Six individuals stated that the IFR is constitutionally
indefensible because it discriminates against law-abiding immigrant
drivers solely based on their immigration category. Another individual,
citing Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976), said the Court held
that a regulation barring residents from Federal employment violated
the due process clause.
Numerous individuals stated that non-domiciled drivers deserve
equal opportunity. Three individuals stated that laws should protect
opportunity and fairness, not take them away. Six individuals
specifically requested that FMCSA focus on fair treatment for all
drivers.
An individual asserted that the Constitution does not limit the
pursuit of happiness to U.S. citizens. Two individuals asserted that
the IFR, contrary to the constitutional guarantee of due process,
violates both the presumption of innocence and the presumption of good
faith by replacing an evidence-based standard with a speculative
assumption unsupported by verified data.
Citing Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), an individual said the
IFR's provisions targeting unpopular groups fail rational basis review.
Similarly, an individual asserted that when classifications are based
on immigration status, the agency ``must demonstrate a logical and
reasonable connection between its stated goal and the means chosen'' to
satisfy the rational basis test. An individual stated that restrictions
based on lawful presence or humanitarian status are subject to rational
basis review, and in the absence of current statistical data or
substantiated documentary evidence, such restrictions fail to satisfy
this standard. The individual reasoned that because this is a Federal
executive action rather than a Congressional classification, the
deferential standard of Mathews v. Diaz does not apply, and FMCSA must
still satisfy rational basis review consistent with Plyler v. Doe. In
contrast, another individual, also citing Mathews v. Diaz, asserted
that ``immigration status is a legal classification, not a suspect
class, and government distinctions based on immigration status receive
rational basis review,'' which the individual said the IFR easily
satisfies. The individual reasoned that because Congress explicitly
authorized FMCSA to establish requirements for the issuance of non-
domiciled CDLs, it is permissible to base distinctions in those
requirements on immigration status.
Citing Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371-72 (1971), three
individuals asserted that alienage classifications require strict
scrutiny. One individual stated that in Graham v. Richardson, the Court
found that restrictions on alienage classifications are
unconstitutional unless the government proves a compelling interest and
narrow tailoring and further that fiscal savings alone cannot justify
discrimination against a suspect class. Citing Foley v. Connelie, 435
U.S. 291 (1978), three individuals said that truck driving is a private
economic activity, not a governmental function, and therefore the
governmental function exception does not apply.
Three individuals asserted the IFR violates Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), while another individual asserted that the
IFR violates Title VII of the CRA. The joint AG comment (which refers
generally to the CRA but cites case law related to Title VII) and two
individuals wrote that the IFR runs afoul of the CRA's prohibition on
employment discrimination against immigrants. An individual asserted
that the IFR excludes refugees and asylees based on their immigration
status and origin, creating a direct discriminatory effect prohibited
under Title VI. In addition, the individual wrote, ``even facially
neutral rules that result in discriminatory exclusion fall under Title
VI violations,'' citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). An
individual commenter stated that the categorical exclusion
disproportionately harms certain national-origin groups and raises
concerns under Title VI's prohibition on discrimination in federally
assisted programs (42 U.S.C. 2000d).
Two individuals asserted that the IFR violates the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and conflicts with Federal anti-
discrimination provisions enacted by Congress because it discriminates
in hiring or licensing based on citizenship or immigration status for
individuals who are authorized to work. Four individuals stated that
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26,
and the Universal Declaration of Human
[[Page 7060]]
Rights, Articles 2 and 23, guarantee non-discrimination in access to
work and professions. Moreover, the joint AG comment stated that INA
prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of citizenship against
asylees and refugees.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with comments claiming that the agency deprived the
public of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth and
Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution or was otherwise
discriminatory in issuing the IFR, regardless of which law is
applied.\21\ Nor has FMCSA violated a fundamental principle of public
trust or the presumptions of innocence and good faith. As discussed
above, the rule is both an authorized and reasonable exercise of the
agency's statutory authority to regulate non-domiciled CDL issuance in
the public interest of highway safety. Ensuring the safety of our
Nation's roadways is FMCSA's mission and top priority. This final rule
demonstrates that the agency has narrowly tailored the regulation to
the least restrictive means possible to achieve this compelling
government interest in good faith and without assuming the criminal
standards of guilt or innocence of any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Some commenters alleged that the IFR violated Title VI of
the CRA (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance, while others
alleged violations of Title VII of the CRA (42 U.S.C. 2000e et
seq.), which prohibits private and State and local government
employers with 15 or more employees and employment agencies from
discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin or sex in all aspects of an employment relationship,
including hiring, discharge, compensation, assignments, and other
terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to comments asserting that immigration status bears no
relation to traffic safety, FMCSA notes that immigration status does
have a relation to traffic safety insofar as the status affects FMCSA's
ability to ensure the safety fitness of the drivers classified in that
status. As discussed in section VI.B.1 of this final rule, the
inability of the States to obtain driver history for non-domiciled
applicants creates an unacceptable bifurcated standard in driver
vetting when compared to U.S.-domiciled drivers, with non-domiciled
credentials being processed without equivalent checks on the respective
driver's foreign driving history. This creates a critical safety gap in
FMCSA's ability to ensure the safety fitness of such drivers, as SDLAs
are unable to access foreign driving histories that would identify
prior unsafe behaviors, crashes, or disqualifying offenses that would
otherwise prevent licensure.
Given the administrative inability for SDLAs to vet foreign driving
histories, it is the U.S. Department of State's enhanced and thorough
vetting procedures for H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visa applicants that will
mitigate this safety gap. As explained in the IFR, in consulting with
DOL's Office of Foreign Labor Certification, FMCSA understands that
employer applications related to commercial trucking typically include
some combination of the following job requirements: possess U.S. CDL or
foreign CDL equivalent, related work experience (12 months to two
years), clean driving record, pass drug or medical testing, and
knowledge of or proficiency in English (90 FR 46516). Applicants for
these commercial trucking positions associated with an H-2A, H-2B, or
E-2 visa classification are then subject to the Department of State's
enhanced vetting procedures to determine whether an applicant has
established the requisite experience to operate a CMV safely, such that
they are eligible for the requested visa classification. As described
in VI.B.1.a, these procedures direct the consular officer to request
evidence that would demonstrate that the driver qualifies for a CDL,
and generally include requests for 10 years of driving history, past
traffic violations, license suspensions and revocations, and other
similar records. No other category of foreign-domiciled driver is
currently subject to the same level of enhanced vetting procedures for
CMV driver qualifications and safety fitness by the U.S. Department of
State.
The limitation of eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 statuses is
therefore not based on the status itself, but on the existence of a
parallel Federal vetting regime that mitigates the safety gap and
thereby resolves the bifurcated standard and fulfills FMCSA's statutory
mandate. By aligning the rule's eligibility requirements to certain
employment-based nonimmigrant statuses that receive enhanced and
thorough interagency screening and vetting, the agency is narrowly
tailoring the regulation to the least restrictive means possible to
achieve a compelling government interest--ensuring the safe operation
of CMVs and driver safety fitness through vetting non-domiciled drivers
at a level comparable to U.S.-domiciled drivers.
The concerns raised by commenters regarding alternatives to the
final rule are addressed below in section VI.B.8.
d. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and many
individuals asserted that the IFR violates the APA as it is arbitrary
and capricious, contrary to constitutional rights, or exceeds
jurisdiction. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and
an individual stated that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious because
the agency considered an impermissible factor such as race or
nationality or relied on information Congress did not intend for it to
consider.
Similarly, citing Marin Audubon Soc'y v. U.S. Federal Aviation
Association, 121 F.4th 902, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2024), and Am. Clinical Lab.
Ass'n v. Becerra, 40 F.4th 616, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2022), the joint AG
comment stated that agencies can only act to the extent Congress
authorizes them to and relying on factors Congress did not intend them
to consider violates the APA. Thus, the commenter said, FMCSA violated
the APA by stating that the IFR was ``issued with respect to an
immigration-related function of the United States'' (90 FR 46521) when
FMCSA has no authority to carry out immigration-related functions,
adding that FMCSA ``attempted to deny that the IFR is an immigration-
related rule'' when defending the IFR in litigation before the D.C.
Circuit. Further, citing Dep't of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. 752,
785 (2019), the commenter reasoned that the IFR is arbitrary and
capricious because it not only is ``both irrationally overinclusive and
irrationally underinclusive'' but also fails to connect the decision
made with the explanation given.
Citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983),
the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, MALDEF, and
multiple individuals said that an agency must articulate a rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made, whereas FMCSA
made speculative assumptions in the IFR about public safety that lacked
empirical support, thus rendering the IFR arbitrary and capricious
under the APA. An individual reasoned that because FMCSA's authority is
limited to promoting uniform safety standards and does not include
enforcing immigration policy, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of
DHS, the IFR exceeds FMCSA's authority and is thus arbitrary and
capricious under the APA. Another individual also critiqued the IFR as
being arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, specifically
for reversing, without grandfather
[[Page 7061]]
protection, EAD holders' eligibility to be issued CDLs. Five
individuals said that the IFR is procedurally invalid. The Asylum
Seeker Advocacy Project and an individual requested the IFR be
withdrawn because it was arbitrary, with the individual noting the D.C.
Circuit cited serious legal concerns when it issued an administrative
stay. Another individual urged the agency to vacate and withdraw the
IFR, disclose its decision-making process, and re-engage in lawful
rulemaking consistent with the Constitution, the APA, and the
principles of nondiscrimination.
Citing U.S. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television
Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009), two individuals said the Court
reiterated that agencies must provide reasoned explanations when making
substantial policy changes. Similarly, citing Judulang v. Holder, 565
U.S. 42 (2011), an individual said the IFR cannot forbid certain
individuals from holding CDLs based on an irrational reason such as
immigration status. Citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470
U.S. 532 (1985), an individual said that the agency may not arbitrarily
presume misconduct or unfitness in individuals who hold lawful rights
and status.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with comments claiming that the agency was
arbitrary and capricious in issuing the IFR. In both the IFR and
throughout this rule, FMCSA articulated a rational basis for specifying
employment-based nonimmigrant categories in the IFR and demonstrated
that the rule is both an authorized and reasonable exercise of the
agency's statutory authority to regulate non-domiciled CDL issuance in
the interest of highway safety. By aligning the rule's eligibility
requirements to certain employment-based nonimmigrant statuses that
receive enhanced and thorough interagency screening, the agency is
narrowly tailoring the regulation to the least restrictive means
possible to achieve a compelling government interest--ensuring the safe
operation of CMVs and driver safety fitness through vetting of non-
domiciled drivers at a level comparable to those who are domiciled in
the United States. The records check has been and remains an important
part of the process for determining whether an individual is qualified
to operate a CMV safely. Moreover, the rule promotes uniform safety
standards because it helps the agency ensure that the driver history
vetting of foreign-domiciled drivers is comparable, and therefore more
uniform to, the driver history vetting of U.S.-domiciled drivers.
Further, as discovered through the APRs, the reliance on EADs to
demonstrate eligibility for a non-domiciled CDL has proven
administratively unworkable and resulted in widespread regulatory non-
compliance. This rule necessarily simplifies the documentation to
ensure that SDLAs could accurately apply the eligibility criteria. As
explained in Section VI.B.1.b, the simplicity of the nonimmigrant
status coding on the I-94 allows for front-line workers in SDLAs to
correctly determine an individual's nonimmigrant status without having
to undergo the same process of interpreting complex codes.
e. Revocation or Denied Renewal of Credentials and Due Process
An individual asserted the IFR revokes CDLs that were legally
issued under existing Federal laws. Citing Bowen v. Georgetown Univ.
Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988), an individual wrote that Federal
agencies may not impose retroactive penalties without clear statutory
authority and the agency revoking or refusing renewal of CDLs solely
due to later rule changes constitutes impermissible retroactive
punishment. Five individuals reasoned that the IFR violates due process
requirements because it retroactively removes drivers' validly issued
licenses without a fair hearing or individualized review.
An individual critiqued FMCSA's inaction in cases where States have
rescinded CDLs and are not reinstating them despite the IFR having been
stayed by the court. In contrast, an individual expressed outrage at
the court for staying the IFR and urged the court to lift the stay so
that the IFR can be enforced.
Three individuals said that under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
(1976), FMCSA's action fails the procedural due process balancing test,
writing that the individual's interest in continued lawful employment
is substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high, and the
agency's asserted interest in administrative convenience is minimal.
Further, citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), four individuals
said there is no basis to deprive a party of procedural safeguards nor
to take away property rights and entitlements (i.e., driver's licenses)
that people had until the IFR was issued. Citing Elrod v. Burns, 427
U.S. 347 (1976), and Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), an individual
stated that the IFR causes irreparable harm to constitutional liberty
and property interests because it prevents CDL renewal and thus
disrupts people's ability to work and earn money.
Citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, another individual
characterized the IFR as directing States to ``tak[e] away a property
interest from a non-domiciled CDL holder without giving them notice or
opportunity to be heard.'' Similarly, an individual, citing Alvarado v.
Dep't of Licensing, 371 P.3d 549 (2016), asserted that CDLs are
property interests protected by procedural due process principles,
requiring meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. Another
individual asserted the IFR lacks fair administrative processes by
denying individuals access to appeal or review procedures if their CDL
renewal requests are automatically rejected.
FMCSA Response
With respect to the comment alleging that the rule has a
retroactive application (e.g., cancelling rights that were legally
obtained under previous regulations), FMCSA notes that the rule itself
was written to be prospective, applying to all CDL and CLP issuances on
or after the effective date of the IFR. The commenters seem to be
focusing on concerns with the corrective action required as part of the
ongoing APRs of SDLAs that unveiled serious deficiencies in the CDL
issuance processes of several States. Regarding drivers whose licenses
were improperly issued, the requirement to reissue licenses pursuant to
the new processes outlined in the IFR, and by extension the final rule,
is not intended to penalize drivers. Rather, it is intended to ensure
that all licenses determined to be improperly issued through the APR
process were reissued following the standards in effect at the time of
reissuance. Such standards had been strengthened to ensure the
integrity of the credentials and address the very gaps that led to non-
domiciled CDLs and CLPs being issued improperly on such a large scale.
To permit improperly issued non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs to be reissued
under the prior standards would have caused uneven application and
confusion.
Further, with regard to drivers who currently hold an unexpired
non-domiciled CLP or CDL that was properly issued under the pre-IFR
rules, nothing in this final rule requires States to proactively revoke
those licenses. However, at the next licensing transaction following
the effective date of this final rule (e.g., reissuance, including
amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously
issued CLP or CDL; transfer;
[[Page 7062]]
renewal; or upgrade), States are required to apply the new eligibility
standards.
Regarding comments asserting that CDLs are property interests
protected by procedural due process principles, requiring meaningful
notice and an opportunity to be heard, FMCSA notes that the agency
provided meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard through a 60-
day comment period. Moreover, the authority to issue and downgrade CLPs
and CDLs lies with the SDLAs.\22\ Although such issuances and
downgrades need to be in substantial compliance with the minimum
Federal standards set forth in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 to avoid having
amounts withheld from Highway Trust Fund apportionment under 49 U.S.C.
31314, individuals who believe their credentials have been improperly
denied or downgraded due to a State's error in administering the
previous standard (e.g., because the State had improperly issued the
credential for a time period exceeding the EAD date) have the
opportunity to be heard and otherwise afforded due process through
established State procedures and State law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., 49 CFR 383.73(f)(5), requiring States to
initiate established State procedures for downgrading the non-
domiciled CLP or CDL upon receiving information from FMCSA, the
Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, or
other Federal agency with jurisdiction that the applicant no longer
has lawful immigration status in the United States in a specified
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Federalism
The Oregon Department of Transportation challenged the IFR's
constitutionality on the basis of its mandatory downgrade provision,
which the commenter said, ``effectively deputizes states to carry out
federal immigration enforcement, a role that has traditionally been
reserved for federal agencies.'' In contrast, an individual writing in
support of the IFR said it ``approach[es] the limits of the
anticommandeering doctrine,'' which the commenter described citing
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997), and Murphy v. Nat'l
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453, 474 (2018), but could be
protected against a constitutional challenge on that grounds by
``subsidizing the States to correct their deficiencies and administer
the program, rather than penalize them from federal highway funds for
noncompliance.'' Citing S. Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211 (1987),
and Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), the
individual also suggested that if FMCSA does withhold funds, to avoid
crossing the line from inducement to coercion of States, ``the federal
funds to be withheld should be more appropriately described as punitive
or else be reduced from the standard penalty fines contained within 49
U.S.C. 31314.''
Another individual expressed concerns that the rule encroached on
State licensing authority, created regulatory inconsistency, and
undermined federalism principles in 49 U.S.C. 31141. Further, an
individual stated that the IFR is an overreach of the Federal
Government and an unconstitutional use of Federal power, noting that
States are capable of handling licensing.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees that the IFR required States to carry out Federal
immigration enforcement. Though the rule references certain immigration
statuses, it does so only insofar as they relate to helping the agency
ensure that the driver history vetting of foreign-domiciled drivers is
comparable, and therefore more uniform to, the driver history vetting
of U.S.-domiciled drivers. Nor does the rule improperly commandeer
States. Congress established the requirements for State participation
in 49 U.S.C. 31311. That section clearly provides that to avoid having
amounts withheld from apportionment under 49 U.S.C. 31314, the State
must adopt and carry out a program for testing and ensuring the fitness
of individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles consistent with the
minimum standards prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under
49 U.S.C. 31305(a). As described above and in section IV.B.3.a, below,
this rule is both an authorized and reasonable exercise of the agency's
statutory authority to regulate non-domiciled CDL issuance in the
interest of highway safety.
3. Background of IFR
a. Annual Program Reviews (APRs) of SDLAs
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice stated that the lack of
transparency in the APRs used to justify the rule undermines public
trust, and without transparency, stakeholders cannot determine whether
the identified issues correlate with real safety risk. Unitarian
Universalists for Social Justice added that without convincing data,
the IFR's subtextual purpose appears to be to target immigrants by
unjustly limiting their employment opportunities.
An individual said that the 2025 APRs point to systemic
deficiencies at the SDLA level, including inadequate SDLA training,
inconsistent application of SAVE checks, and weak internal audits, and
not problems related to the visa category of the applicant. Citing a
recent report, the individual stated that weaknesses have been found in
FMCSA's guidance regarding complaint handling and oversight, leading to
inconsistent enforcement. Likewise, another individual stated that the
issues raised by the 2025 APRs, namely the finding that some States
issued non-domiciled CDLs without proper verification or timely
cancellation, originate from administrative oversight, and not the
drivers.
FMCSA Response
CMVSA,\23\ as amended, established performance standards with which
State \24\ CDL programs must comply to avoid having amounts withheld
from Highway Trust Fund apportionment under 49 U.S.C. 31314 and to
avoid CDL program decertification under 49 U.S.C. 31312.\25\ In this
regard, States are required to be in substantial compliance with the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31311(a) and its implementing regulations in
49 CFR part 383 and part 384, subpart B. Under 49 CFR 384.301(a), to be
in substantial compliance with 49 U.S.C. 31311(a), a State must meet
each and every standard of part 384, subpart B by means of ``the
demonstrable combined effect of its statutes, regulations,
administrative procedures and practices, organizational structures,
internal control mechanisms, resource assignments (facilities,
equipment, and personnel), and enforcement practices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 49 U.S.C. 31301 et seq.
\24\ Under 49 U.S.C. 31301 and 49 CFR 383.5, the definition of
``State'' includes the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the term
``State'' throughout this letter includes the District of Columbia.
\25\ 49 U.S.C. 31311(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its oversight, FMCSA conducts comprehensive APRs of
State CDL programs, in accordance with 49 CFR 384.307, to verify that
States are in substantial compliance. During an APR, FMCSA evaluates
all aspects of the State's CDL program, including knowledge and skills
testing procedures, CDL issuance processes, procedures to report
convictions and withdrawals, compliance with FMCSA's physical
qualification and Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse programs, issuance of
non-domiciled CDLs, and other areas.
At the conclusion of the APR, if FMCSA makes a preliminary
determination that a State does not meet one or more of the minimum
standards for substantial compliance under Part 384, Subpart B, FMCSA
notifies the
[[Page 7063]]
State accordingly.\26\ A State has 30 calendar days to respond to the
preliminary determination explaining the State's corrective action or,
alternatively, why FMCSA's preliminary determination is incorrect.\27\
If FMCSA makes a final determination of substantial noncompliance,
FMCSA may initiate the withholding of certain Federal-aid highway funds
and may decertify the State's CDL program.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 49 CFR 384.307(b). A preliminary determination of
noncompliance is also known as a ``finding.''
\27\ Id. at section 384.307(c).
\28\ 49 U.S.C. 31314(c), 31312; see also infra at section VI; 49
CFR 384.307(d), 49 CFR part 384, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the 2025 comprehensive APRs, FMCSA conducted an in-depth
review of State procedures and policies in issuing non-domiciled CLPs
and CDLs. FMCSA's enhanced focus on State non-domiciled CDL issuance
practices during the 2025 APR was consistent with E.O. 14286,
``Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America's Truck
Drivers.'' \29\ The E.O. directed FMCSA to ``review non-domiciled . . .
CDLs issued by relevant State agencies to identify any unusual patterns
or numbers or other irregularities'' and ``to take appropriate actions
to improve the effectiveness of current protocols. . . .'' \30\
Accordingly, FMCSA conducted a thorough audit of each SDLA's procedures
and policies in issuing non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs as part of the 2025
APR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 90 FR 18759 (Apr. 28, 2025).
\30\ Id. at 18759-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2025 APRs uncovered systemic procedural and computer
programming errors, significant problems with staff training and
quality assurance, and policies that lack sufficient management
controls in the issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs by multiple
SDLAs. As a result, SDLAs were discovered to have issued non-domiciled
CDLs to drivers who do not qualify,\31\ issued non-domiciled CDLs that
extend beyond a driver's expiration of lawful presence known at the
time of issuance, issued non-domiciled CDLs without first validating
the drivers' eligibility under Sec. 383.71(f)(2)(i), and engaged in
other noncompliant practices. At the time the Agency published the IFR,
FMCSA noted several other States apart from California issued non-
domiciled CDLs in violation of the regulatory requirements. Those
States were, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and
Washington. In total, FMCSA has identified more than 30 States that
have failed to comply with the non-domiciled CDL regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ For example, FMCSA is aware that numerous States have
issued non-domiciled CDLs to drivers who are domiciled in Mexico,
despite the fact that Mexican and Canadian drivers are not eligible
for non-domiciled CDLs under 49 CFR 383.71(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where FMCSA discovered deficiencies in an SDLA's non-domiciled CLP
or CDL issuance process, FMCSA required the SDLA to complete several
corrective actions as part of the APR process, in accordance with 49
CFR 384.307. The agency's stated corrective actions included, but were
not limited to: immediately pausing the issuance of all new, renewed,
transferred, or upgraded non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs until FMCSA
provided written confirmation that an SDLA's corrective action plan was
accepted and implemented; requiring the SDLA to, as soon as
practicable, identify all unexpired non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs that
were not issued in compliance with parts 383 and 384 and conduct an
internal audit to identify all procedural and programming errors,
training and quality assurance problems, insufficient policies and
practices, and other issues that resulted in the issuance of any non-
domiciled CLPs and CDLs that did not meet the standards of parts 383
and 384 (the scope of the audit was not limited to the issues
identified in a State's APR); take immediate action to correct the
deficiencies identified in SDLA's internal audit; as part of the
State's audit, review all supporting documentation for all new,
renewed, transferred, or upgraded non-domiciled CLP and CDL
transactions to ensure compliance with parts 383 and 384 and provide
FMCSA a copy of the audit findings and the number of unexpired
noncompliant non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs; take immediate action to
correct the deficiencies identified in the SDLA's internal audit; take
immediate action to void or rescind all unexpired noncompliant non-
domiciled CLPs and CDLs and reissue the licenses in accordance with
parts 383 and 384, in effect at the time of reissuance; resume issuing
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs only after the State has voided or
rescinded all unexpired noncompliant non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs and
reissued the licenses in accordance with parts 383 and 384, in effect
at the time of reissuance, and the State ensures that all statutes,
regulations, administrative procedures and practices, organizational
structures, internal control mechanisms, resources assignments
(facilities, equipment, and personnel), and enforcement practices meet
each and every standard of subpart B of part 384 and 49 U.S.C. 31311,
and FMCSA provides written confirmation that the SDLA's corrective
action plan has been accepted and implemented.
The agency required the corrective actions during the APR process
as part of its oversight authority over States' CDL programs in 49
U.S.C. 313 and separate from the issuance of the non-domiciled CDL IFR.
These corrective actions were designed to rectify the findings of
widespread noncompliance, but further action is necessary to deter
continued noncompliance, whether willful or unintentional. Insofar as
commenters have complained that the pause in non-domiciled credential
issuance was nontransparent or subtextual, FMCSA asserts that the
agency was and is well within its statutory and regulatory authority to
issue corrective actions to ensure States' compliance with each and
every standard of 49 CFR part 384, subpart B and the integrity of the
National CDL program. States are cognizant of their requirement to
maintain compliance with 49 U.S.C. 31311, as well as FMCSA's obligation
to review States' compliance with the National CDL program through the
agency's APR process. That process is clearly outlined in subpart B of
part 384, therefore any assertion that the APR process is
nontransparent is ill-informed and should be rejected. In addition, as
the letters of preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance
state,\32\ FMCSA conducts program reviews yearly, thus, the APR process
is no surprise to the States. Further, FMCSA conducts its APRs in close
cooperation with the States, as the documentation necessary to
substantiate the non-domiciled credentialing issuance process, which
FMCSA reviews during the APR, is solely within the possession of the
States. Annual program reviews often involve onsite visits to SDLA
offices to review documentation and policies, and to observe
facilities, internal control mechanisms, and procedures. None of these
activities can occur without prior coordination with the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The letters of preliminary determination of substantial
noncompliance from the 2025 APRs, as well as the letters of
conditional determination of substantial noncompliance and final
determination of substantial noncompliance for California, are in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insofar as any allegations of subtext exist, FMCSA likewise rejects
those arguments. In addition to the fact that APRs are routine and
conducted annually, the agency noted earlier in this section that our
enhanced focus on State non-domiciled CDL issuance practices during the
2025 APR was consistent with E.O. 14286, ``Enforcing Commonsense Rules
of the Road for
[[Page 7064]]
America's Truck Drivers,'' \33\ which directed FMCSA to ``review non-
domiciled . . . CDLs issued by relevant State agencies to identify any
unusual patterns or numbers or other irregularities'' and ``to take
appropriate actions to improve the effectiveness of current protocols.
. . .'' \34\ The APR process is a routine and vital component of
FMCSA's oversight of the National CDL Program, any suggestion of
subtext in its administration should be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 90 FR 18759 (Apr. 28, 2025).
\34\ Id. at 18759-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Lack of Statistical Evidence
AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Asian Law
Caucus, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Inspiritus, Justice at Work
PA, King County Metro, the joint AG comment, The Sikh Coalition,
Teamsters California, and numerous individuals expressed concern about
the lack of statistical evidence supporting the rule's safety
justification and stated that FMCSA had not provided nationwide crash
data showing that non-domiciled CDL holders were disproportionately
responsible for crashes compared to U.S. citizen drivers. United LLC
and many individuals stated that there was no correlation between a
driver's immigration status and their ability to drive safely. AFT, the
Asian Law Caucus, the Public Rights Project on behalf of Local
Governments, and several individuals stated that FMCSA itself stated in
the rule text that there was ``not sufficient evidence, derived from
well-designed, rigorous, quantitative analyses, to reliably demonstrate
a measurable empirical relationship between the nation of domicile for
a CDL driver and safety outcomes in the United States.'' Two
individuals stated that, without such evidence, the rule appeared
arbitrary under the APA. An individual cited court decisions that
condemn such ``evidentiary gaps.''
OPM Logistics, the joint AG comment, Unitarian Universalists for
Social Justice, and numerous individual commenters stated that the rule
is based on a small number of incidents that were not representative of
the broader population of non-domiciled CDL holders. They said that
FMCSA cited only five fatal crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders
in 2025, which they considered insufficient justification for such
sweeping policy changes. The National Education Association and many
individuals stated that the vast majority of fatal truck crashes in the
United States were caused by U.S. citizen drivers, not non-domiciled
CDL holders. The Sikh Coalition and an individual stated that, based on
FMCSA's own Federal statistics and crash reports, non-domiciled CDL
holders accounted for fewer than 2 two percent of all large-truck
crashes nationwide, while over 98 percent of such crashes involved
U.S.-domiciled CDL drivers. Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice
stated that the five fatal crashes represent 0.13 percent of the 2025
fatal truck crashes, yet non-domiciled drivers comprise 3.5 to four
percent of all CDL holders, which suggests these drivers are not
inherently more dangerous. An individual stated that the five incidents
represented only 0.002 percent of fatalities involving CDL drivers.
Three individuals provided specific statistics to illustrate their
point, stating that in 2023, there were 164,347 crashes involving large
trucks and buses, making the five incidents involving non-domiciled
drivers account for less than 0.003 percent of these crashes. Another
individual stated that in 2025, there had been 2,200 deaths in truck-
related accidents, and the 12 people who died as a result of actions by
non-domiciled CDL holders represented 0.55 percent of fatalities in
truck accidents and 0.033 percent of the total number of fatalities on
U.S. roads. Two individuals stated that Federal data shows that about
70 percent of fatal truck-passenger vehicles collisions are caused by
the passenger vehicle. King County Metro stated that collisions
involving large trucks are significantly decreasing year over year.
An individual said that CDL holders, regardless of domicile status,
have lower crash rates than non-commercial drivers. Several other
commenters stated that non-domiciled CDL holders do not have higher
crash rates than domiciled CDL holders. Many individuals stated that
accidents can happen to anyone, unrelated to immigration status.
Teamsters California remarked that non-domiciled CDL holders are highly
qualified and rigorously screened, and the loss of these drivers will
make communities fundamentally less safe. An individual urged FMCSA to
research which demographics are responsible for the majority of truck-
related accidents before finalizing such an impactful rule. An
individual questioned whether there has been an increase in accidents.
Another individual said the data shows there is a trend of safer
driving, even with more miles driven, which begs the question of what
is the ``true narrative'' behind the regulation, since the data is not
supportive of the safety aspect. Another individual said data is also
needed on how many commercial accidents are caused by the CDL holder
versus by non-commercial vehicles.
Other commenters offered support for FMCSA's rationale. OOIDA
discussed that the five recent fatal crashes are likely a small sample
of crashes involving non-domiciled drivers. Similarly, an individual
stated that the five crashes cited by FMCSA, while seemingly small in
number, were significant enough to warrant action. This commenter
stated that these documented crashes represented only the fatal crashes
FMCSA had identified to date and did not include non-fatal crashes
involving non-domiciled CDL holders. The individual also stated that
the systemic compliance failures documented through APRs demonstrated
that the problem extended far beyond these five crashes, with
approximately 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs in California improperly
issued and similar problems confirmed in at least five other States.
An individual stated that statistics were ``notoriously understated
to look pretty'' and that the full extent of conflicts and violations
was far greater than published. An individual also stated that data
from recent years indicated that non-domiciled CDL holders had been
disproportionately represented in serious traffic incidents, often due
to language barriers and limited familiarity with U.S. road standards.
Another individual discussed ``all the available data'' showing recent
audits of non-domiciled drivers being taken off the road due to fake/
illegal CDLs, CDLs that had expired, or CDLs with no names, as well as
the ``uptick in fatal crashes'' involving undocumented illegal
immigrants and expired non-domiciled CDL holders who could not pass a
simple English proficiency test. The individual also stated that it is
not possible to know the skill level of a non-domiciled driver, noting
that even legal citizens are receiving CDLs with no verification of
their skill level. Commending the agency for addressing many safety
issues, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) also described the
illegal practice of ``cabotage'' and stated that there has been an
increase in recent years in the incidence of U.S. motor carriers
illegally hiring B-1 visa drivers.
FMCSA Response
In response to commenters who cited a lack of statistical evidence
in the IFR, FMCSA discussed five recent, fatal crashes involving
drivers with non-domiciled CDLs as examples of the tangible impact of
States failing to
[[Page 7065]]
follow the proper procedures when issuing non-domiciled CDLs, as well
as the need for stronger regulations to ensure that non-domiciled
drivers present in the United States without lawful immigration status
are not able to obtain CLPs and CDLs. This sample of crashes was not
intended to be exhaustive or to provide the basis for a statistical
analysis; rather, it was merely a discussion of crashes that had come
to the agency's attention and, when combined with the widespread
systemic collapse of non-domiciled issuance by SDLAs, warranted
immediate action. Moreover, by focusing on statistical significance,
commenters overlook the core safety issue. The necessity of this Rule
stems not from a specific crash count, but from a critical safety
vulnerability: the inability of SDLAs to verify foreign driver
histories. This failure compromises the agency's ability to ensure the
safety fitness for drivers who operate CMVs. Consequently, the
statistics cited in the comments, such as the calculations that the
five fatal crashes represent 0.13 percent of the 2025 fatal truck
crashes or that the 12 fatalities from those crashes represented 0.55
percent of fatalities in truck accidents and 0.033 percent of the total
number of fatalities on U.S. roads, are not useful metrics to evaluate
the complete safety impact of the rule.
Since the IFR was issued, additional fatal crashes have come to the
attention of FMCSA involving holders of non-domiciled CDLs (or drivers
who were improperly issued standard CDLs instead of non-domiciled
CDLs), who were eligible to receive a non-domiciled CDL at the time the
license was issued but would have had a substantial likelihood of being
prevented from being licensed under the revised regulations.\35\
However, FMCSA emphasizes that even this expanded list remains
incomplete because the necessary level of detail regarding the type of
CDL a driver involved in a crash held is simply not available under
current crash reporting requirements. FMCSA is therefore unable to
create a comprehensive list of all crashes that are within the scope
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FMCSA coordinated with federal partners in the Department
of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and
using available information, to confirm that it is likely the status
of each of the drivers listed in the descriptions of the crashes in
this final rule would have rendered them ineligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL under this final rule's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A primary issue with the data is that neither the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS), nor the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS), nor the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) allow FMCSA to ascertain whether the
driver's CDL was, or should have been, designated as non-domiciled. The
primary purpose of MCMIS is to capture and organize data for motor
carriers. Crash and inspection reports in MCMIS only include driver's
license number and no additional information related to the status of
the driver. Similarly, FARS captures the driver's license number,
endorsements, and status (e.g., valid, suspended, revoked, expired, or
canceled). CDLIS, while a more comprehensive data set of driver
information, does not contain a data field for entry of this status.
Instead, FMCSA had to review reports of fatal crashes that occurred in
2025 individually, cross-reference driver information from these
databases along with other available information, and reach out to the
SDLAs for details about each driver to determine whether each crash was
in scope.
Each crash listed in this final rule and the IFR has been manually
verified through the SDLA and corresponding police crash reports.
Notably, FMCSA has included only those fatal crashes where it could be
reasonably determined that the non-domiciled driver--operating a CMV
requiring a CDL--was at fault due to the driver's action or inaction.
This distinction is critical because studies indicate between 26 and 38
percent of fatal crashes involving CMVs have a driver-related factor
attributed to the CMV driver.\36\ Therefore, it would be erroneous to
compare the fatality figures in this section with total CMV fatalities,
crashes involving a CMV that do not require a CDL, or fatal CMV crashes
not caused by the actions of the CMV driver. Finally, given the
extraordinary limitations in obtaining exhaustive crash data for non-
domiciled CDL holders, this section serves as an illustrative sample of
the risks this regulatory action aims to mitigate and the crashes that
would be prevented by FMCSA fulfilling its statutory obligation to
ensure the fitness of all drivers who operate a CMV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See, e.g., <a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20428">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20428</a>;
<a href="https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14276">https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14276</a>; <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/LTBCF%202022-%20508.pdf">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/LTBCF%202022-%20508.pdf</a> [Table
29].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, FMCSA has identified for illustrative
purposes at least twelve more fatal crashes fitting this description in
calendar year 2025, in addition to the five crashes already discussed
in the IFR. At least 30 people were killed in the 17 crashes discussed
in the IFR and here, including two of the non-domiciled drivers, and
more than 40 other people suffered non-fatal injuries as part of these
17 crashes. FMCSA consulted with USCIS and confirmed that there is a
substantial likelihood none of the drivers involved in these crashes
would be eligible to hold a non-domiciled CDL under the regulations
adopted in this rule. Moreover, the available data highlights a
significant lack of driving experience within this sample; the majority
of these drivers obtained their initial CDL within the preceding two
years. Despite this brief period of licensure, several of the drivers
have already been convicted of traffic violations, underscoring the
safety risks associated with the Agency's inability to verify foreign
driving histories.
On February 3, 2025, a Cascadia Freightliner being driven by a non-
domiciled CDL holder was struck by a passenger car on I-44 in Oklahoma
City. Although the driver of the passenger car, who died in the crash,
was found to be under the influence of alcohol, investigators also
found that the CDL holder contributed to the crash by illegally parking
and in a manner that blocked the lane of travel. The Freightliner
driver was first issued a non-domiciled CDL in May 2024. He has
convictions for improper/erratic (unsafe) lane changes and for failure
to obey a traffic sign.
On February 14, 2025, a tractor-trailer driven by a driver who held
a non-domiciled CDL from Colorado was involved in a multi-vehicle fatal
crash in the tunnel on Interstate 80 in Green River, Wyoming. Several
vehicles, including CMVs, were involved in a prior crash and traffic
behind these disabled vehicles had stopped. Shortly thereafter, the
tractor-trailer driven by the non-domiciled CDL driver swerved out of
its lane without significantly slowing down and impacted the rear of a
Dodge Ram traveling in the next lane. Additional vehicles were then
impacted by those vehicles and became involved in the crash; a separate
but related crash later occurred among the vehicles stopped behind the
initial crash. The incident involved smoke that billowed out of both
ends of the tunnel, which required temporary closure for inspection and
repair.\37\ In total, the incident led to three fatalities and 20
injuries.\38\ The driver was first issued a
[[Page 7066]]
non-domiciled CDL by Colorado in April 2024, and it expired in July
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ <a href="https://county10.com/officials-investigators-share-details-about-i-80-tunnel-crash-near-green-river-at-feb-15-press-conference-with-governor-gordon/">https://county10.com/officials-investigators-share-details-about-i-80-tunnel-crash-near-green-river-at-feb-15-press-conference-with-governor-gordon/</a> (accessed Dec. 16, 2025).
\38\ <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY25MH004.aspx">https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY25MH004.aspx</a>
(accessed Dec. 12, 2025); <a href="https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/02/14/huge-explosions-multiple-fatalities-from-fiery-crash-in-green-river-tunnel/">https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/02/14/huge-explosions-multiple-fatalities-from-fiery-crash-in-green-river-tunnel/</a> (accessed Dec. 12, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another incident occurred on February 19, 2025, on Highway 374 near
Green River, Wyoming, not far from the incident described above. The
driver of a tractor-trailer combination unit failed to negotiate a
curve in the road and collided with a passenger vehicle, killing two
people and injuring another.\39\ Reports indicated the driver was
watching videos at the time of the crash, and he was charged with
Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. He received his non-domiciled CLP in New
York State in August 2024 and his non-domiciled CDL the following
month, September 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ <a href="https://www.dot.state.wy.us/news/fatal-crash-occurs-outside-green-river-not-part-of-i-80-detour">https://www.dot.state.wy.us/news/fatal-crash-occurs-outside-green-river-not-part-of-i-80-detour</a> (accessed Jan. 27,
2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2025, a truck driven by a non-domiciled CDL holder
slid on black ice in Carbon County, Wyoming and crashed into another
truck, injuring the second truck's driver and killing a passenger who
was resting in its sleeper berth.\40\ News media reported that the non-
domiciled driver told law enforcement officers he closed his eyes and
did not brake as his truck spun out of control. He pleaded no contest
to vehicular homicide and was sentenced to 90 days in jail, one year
probation, fined, and ordered to pay court costs and fees.\41\ He
received a non-domiciled CLP in Washington State in January 2024 and a
non-domiciled CDL in March 2024, which expired in October 2025 and was
not renewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ <a href="https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/03/18/brief-trucker-suspected-of-causing-i-80-crash-that-killed-another-trucker/">https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/03/18/brief-trucker-suspected-of-causing-i-80-crash-that-killed-another-trucker/</a>
(accessed Dec. 18, 2025).
\41\ <a href="https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/07/08/ukrainian-trucker-who-killed-another-trucker-in-crash-gets-90-days/">https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/07/08/ukrainian-trucker-who-killed-another-trucker-in-crash-gets-90-days/</a> (accessed Dec. 18,
2025); <a href="https://cdllife.com/2025/driver-who-admitted-he-closed-his-eyes-and-did-nothingduring-fatal-black-ice-crash-given-90-day-sentence/">https://cdllife.com/2025/driver-who-admitted-he-closed-his-eyes-and-did-nothingduring-fatal-black-ice-crash-given-90-day-sentence/</a> (accessed Dec. 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2025, the non-domiciled driver of a CMV pulling a
trailer failed to stop at a stop sign in Ector County, Texas and struck
the side of a passenger vehicle traveling through the intersection.\42\
The driver of the passenger vehicle was pronounced dead at the scene.
The CMV driver had been granted a Class A non-domiciled permit in
August 2024 and a Class A non-domiciled CDL in September 2024. At the
time of the crash, he had one prior conviction for failure to use a
seat belt properly, as required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dps-odessa-man-killed-in-crash-on-302-after-driver-of-semi-fails-to-yield/ar-AA1HQZgW">https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dps-odessa-man-killed-in-crash-on-302-after-driver-of-semi-fails-to-yield/ar-AA1HQZgW</a>
(accessed Jan. 8, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fatal head-on collision between a semi-truck and a passenger
vehicle occurred on October 15, 2025 in Porter County, Indiana. The
truck driver swerved left of the center line to avoid a rear-end
collision with a van who had been stopped waiting to make a left-hand
turn and struck a passenger car in the opposite lane head-on, killing
the car's driver.\43\ The semi-truck's trailer then struck the van. The
truck driver previously held a standard Class A CDL issued in 2010,
even though he was only eligible for a non-domiciled CDL under the
rules in effect at the time. This indicates a failure of the SDLA to
process the CDL application properly under the existing regulations.
This driver downgraded his CDL in May 2019 and held only a standard
Class D driver's license at the time of the crash, even though a CDL
was required for the type of vehicle he was driving. Even so, FMCSA
finds it plausible that, had he never been issued a CDL, he would not
have been operating this vehicle at the time of the crash. He had
previous traffic convictions for improper or erratic lane changes,
failure to use a seat belt properly, driving with a disqualified
license, failure to obey restricted lane, operating without equipment
required by law, and failure to comply (citations, fines, or
penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/21/criminal-illegal-alien-kills-indiana-man-after-driving-semi-truck-oncoming-traffic">https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/21/criminal-illegal-alien-kills-indiana-man-after-driving-semi-truck-oncoming-traffic</a>
(accessed Dec. 16, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2025, a driver who held a California non-domiciled
CDL issued in June 2025 was involved in a fatal crash on I-10 in
Ontario, California. Media reports state that the driver failed to
stop, rear-ending several vehicles and colliding with others.\44\ In
total, the incident involved eight vehicles, including four tractor-
trailers. There were three fatalities and multiple other injuries. This
driver was initially issued a Class A CDL with a ``K'' restriction,
which means the driver was only allowed to drive intrastate, in June
2025. However, six days before the crash, the SDLA removed the ``K''
restriction when the driver turned 21, which upgraded \45\ his driving
privileges. Had the SDLA complied with the IFR (which was still in
effect at the time of the upgrade and crash) or the enforcement action
which required California to pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, it
would have prevented the upgrade of his driving privileges. The driver
would have been required to return to the DMV (on or after turning 21)
to have the ``K'' restriction removed and upgrade his CDL. Upon
returning for the upgrade, he would have been found ineligible to
retain the non-domiciled CDL because he was not in one of the specified
employment-based nonimmigrant categories, and consequently would not
have been permitted to operate the CMV involved in this crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ <a href="https://abc7.com/post/pomona-high-school-coach-wife-among-3-killed-chain-reaction-crash-10-freeway-ontario-suspect-jashanpreet-singh-expected-court/18062397/">https://abc7.com/post/pomona-high-school-coach-wife-among-3-killed-chain-reaction-crash-10-freeway-ontario-suspect-jashanpreet-singh-expected-court/18062397/</a> (accessed Dec. 15, 2025);
<a href="https://abc7.com/post/dui-charge-dropped-jashanpreet-singh-semitruck-driver-deadly-10-freeway-crash-ontario/18114192/">https://abc7.com/post/dui-charge-dropped-jashanpreet-singh-semitruck-driver-deadly-10-freeway-crash-ontario/18114192/</a> (accessed
Dec. 15, 2025); <a href="https://apnews.com/article/crash-jashanpreet-singh-california-ad268515fbe4ff67d9376c141e8995c5">https://apnews.com/article/crash-jashanpreet-singh-california-ad268515fbe4ff67d9376c141e8995c5</a> (accessed Dec. 15,
2025).
\45\ FMCSA notes that removal of any restriction, including a
``K'' restriction (which denotes Intrastate Only), constitutes an
upgrade of the credential. Merriam-Webster online defines the term
upgrade in part as an ``improvement.'' See <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upgrade">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upgrade</a>. As an intransitive verb it means
``to replace something (such as software or an electronic device)
with a more useful version or alternative.'' See id. Removing a
``K'' restriction from a CDL is therefore an upgrade of the
credential within the plain meaning of the term because removing the
restriction from the CDL makes it a more useful version that can be
used interstate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A single-vehicle fatality involving a non-domiciled driver occurred
on November 3, 2025, when a semi-truck went off Highway 160, near
Pagosa Springs, Colorado.\46\ The truck driver failed to navigate a
left-hand curve, crossed the road, and struck a Jersey barrier on the
roadside before overturning, sliding back across the roadway, and
plunging approximately 160 to 200 feet down a steep embankment. He was
not wearing a seat belt and was ejected from the vehicle. Media reports
indicated the truck's brakes were visibly smoking before the crash, and
excessive speed was identified as a contributing factor.\47\ There were
runaway truck ramps located both before and after the crash site. No
other vehicles or individuals were involved or injured in the incident.
The driver held a non-domiciled CDL issued by New York State in
September 2024, following the initial issuance of a non-domiciled CLP
in August 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/deadly-semi-truck-crash-colorado-mountain/">https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/deadly-semi-truck-crash-colorado-mountain/</a>, accessed Dec. 15, 2025; <a href="https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2025/11/03/semi-plunges-off-notorious-colorado-pass-killing-23-year-old-driver/">https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2025/11/03/semi-plunges-off-notorious-colorado-pass-killing-23-year-old-driver/</a>, accessed Dec.
15, 2025.
\47\ <a href="https://cdllife.com/2025/runaway-semi-truck-bypassed-ramp-on-wolf-creek-pass-before-fatal-plummet-down-embankment-colorado-troopers-say/">https://cdllife.com/2025/runaway-semi-truck-bypassed-ramp-on-wolf-creek-pass-before-fatal-plummet-down-embankment-colorado-troopers-say/</a>, accessed Dec. 15, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another semi-truck driven by a non-domiciled CDL holder jackknifed
on US 20 near Brothers, Oregon on November 24, 2025. The truck blocked
both lanes of travel, but there were no warning signals or devices in
place when it was struck at highway speed by a passenger
[[Page 7067]]
vehicle.\48\ The passenger vehicle's driver and passenger were killed,
while the truck driver was uninjured. He was arrested and charged with
Criminally Negligent Homicide and Reckless Endangering. This driver
completed Entry Level Driver Training in July 2024 and received a
California non-domiciled CDL in August 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ <a href="https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/local/dhs-semi-driver-involved-in-fatal-highway-20-crash-in-us-illegally-arrest-detainer-requested/article_183caa8a-3453-430a-bedc-9201e291c37a.html">https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/local/dhs-semi-driver-involved-in-fatal-highway-20-crash-in-us-illegally-arrest-detainer-requested/article_183caa8a-3453-430a-bedc-9201e291c37a.html</a>
(accessed Dec. 15, 2025); <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/01/ice-lodges-detainer-criminal-illegal-alien-semi-truck-driver-charged-negligent">https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/01/ice-lodges-detainer-criminal-illegal-alien-semi-truck-driver-charged-negligent</a> (accessed Dec. 15, 2025); <a href="https://ktvz.com/news/accidents-crashes/2025/11/26/osp-arrests-california-truck-driver-after-suv-struck-his-jackknifed-semi-on-highway-20-killing-two-people/">https://ktvz.com/news/accidents-crashes/2025/11/26/osp-arrests-california-truck-driver-after-suv-struck-his-jackknifed-semi-on-highway-20-killing-two-people/</a>
(accessed Dec. 15, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A tractor-trailer driven by a non-domiciled CDL holder collided
with a locomotive at a railroad crossing in Ontario, California on
December 3, 2025.\49\ FMCSA's investigation showed that, despite the
crossing's active warning signals (bells and lights), the CMV entered
the crossing and the train struck the rear portion of its trailer. One
train crew member survived but another was fatally injured. The non-
domiciled CDL was issued in February 2025 by the State of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ <a href="https://www.trains.com/pro/freight/class-i/ntsb-probing-death-of-union-pacific-conductor-in-grade-crossing-incident/">https://www.trains.com/pro/freight/class-i/ntsb-probing-death-of-union-pacific-conductor-in-grade-crossing-incident/</a>
(accessed Jan. 27, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2025, a motorcoach collided with two CMVs and a
passenger vehicle on Interstate 40 Westbound, in Baxter, Putnam County,
Tennessee.\50\ The motorcoach driver was allegedly distracted by a
video playing on a cell phone at the time of the crash and failed to
communicate effectively in English, failing the ELP requirement.\51\
The crash resulted in one fatality and multiple additional injuries.
The motorcoach driver received a Class A non-domiciled CDL permit in
March 2024 and was issued a non-domiciled Class B CDL by New York State
in April 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/charges-pending-against-tour-bus-driver-after-deadly-crash-shuts-down-interstate-in-tn-thp-reports/ar-AA1S2nDD?ocid=BingNewsSerp">https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/charges-pending-against-tour-bus-driver-after-deadly-crash-shuts-down-interstate-in-tn-thp-reports/ar-AA1S2nDD?ocid=BingNewsSerp</a> (accessed Dec. 15,
2025).
\51\ <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/12/11/us-news/feds-probe-if-tour-bus-driver-in-fatal-crash-was-illegally-issued-nys-drivers-license-its-outrageous/">https://nypost.com/2025/12/11/us-news/feds-probe-if-tour-bus-driver-in-fatal-crash-was-illegally-issued-nys-drivers-license-its-outrageous/</a> (accessed Dec. 15, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A crash occurred on December 11, 2025 in Auburn, Washington, in
which a Freightliner Cascadia semi-truck driven by a non-domiciled CDL
holder struck a stopped passenger car from behind, crushing it against
the vehicle ahead of it. The driver of the passenger vehicle was
pronounced dead at the scene. According to initial court documents,
troopers determined the Cascadia driver did not make any attempt to
brake or evade the stopped vehicles before crashing into the car.\52\
There are also allegations that the Cascadia's electronic logbook was
tampered with or falsified. The Cascadia driver received Entry Level
Driver Training in November 2024 and was issued a California non-
domiciled CDL in December 2024. He had a conviction for speeding in the
State of Oregon in May 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ <a href="https://auburnexaminer.com/judge-sets-100000-bail-in-deadly-sr-167-crash-as-prosecutors-cite-probable-cause/">https://auburnexaminer.com/judge-sets-100000-bail-in-deadly-sr-167-crash-as-prosecutors-cite-probable-cause/</a> (accessed
Jan. 5, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the necessity for this rule rests not on a specific
crash count but on FMCSA's fundamental statutory mandate to ensure the
safety fitness of all operators of CMVs. Although system limitations
preclude the aggregation of comprehensive data, the fatal crashes
identified in this section serve to illustrate the tangible risks
mitigated by this rule. By limiting licensure to only those individuals
whose driver history can be vetted, FMCSA is not only responding to a
clear safety flaw but is affirmatively fulfilling its statutory
requirement to ensure the safety fitness of every driver licensed to
operate a CMV.
c. Real Causes of Truck Crashes
Many individuals stated that the rule ignores the well-documented
causes of truck crashes, such as fatigue, training lapse, insufficient
oversight, distracted driving, impaired driving, speeding, and
mechanical failures--not immigration status. An individual identified
other specific factors that contributed to commercial vehicle crashes,
including company pressure, inadequate supervision, and insufficient
training. The individual stated that companies often prioritize
productivity over safety, leading to fatigue, pressure, and increased
risk of driver error, and that immigrant drivers were especially
vulnerable to this dynamic because they might fear questioning a
dispatcher or refusing a load. The individual stated that many Class A
Entry-Level Driver Training programs focused on minimum proficiency and
allowed trainees to complete programs in a matter of days, without
real-world experience in high-risk environments such as mountain
driving or night operations. An individual stated that the Florida
Turnpike crash, which was cited in the rule, was likely a case of a
driver being lazy and not wanting to travel to the next exit, rather
than an issue related to language or nationality. Another individual
stated that the Florida incident was ``just an accident'' that could
happen to anyone, noting that many accidents happen daily, including
those involving white drivers.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA finds these comments to be out of scope for this rulemaking.
The critical issue is that statutory authority requires the agency to
implement a regulatory framework that ensures CDL driver safety and
fitness. FMCSA has determined that it is not logistically possible for
SDLAs to perform a thorough driver history investigation for foreign-
domiciled individuals. Therefore, the underlying causes of any
particular crash, or even large truck crashes in general, are not
relevant to FMCSA's revisions to the non-domiciled CDL issuance
process. Moreover, while the agency acknowledges that many factors
contribute to crashes, the specific regulatory failure addressed by
this rule is the licensure of individuals who may have a history of
unsafe driving that would otherwise disqualify them. If a driver causes
a crash due to unsafe behaviors that were present in their unverified
foreign record, that crash was preventable through proper vetting.
Licensing a driver without the ability to investigate their history--as
is required for domestic drivers--removes a critical layer of defense
in accident prevention.
However, FMCSA does note that the agency's primary mission is
roadway safety and the reduction of crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving large trucks and buses. The agency does not accept that
crashes are a daily fact of life; instead, the agency strives to
eliminate as many crashes as possible by strengthening its safety
regulations and requiring compliance with those regulations. To that
end, FMCSA has considered underlying causes of truck crashes as part of
various other agency actions. For instance, the agency is currently
taking action regarding CDL driver training schools who cut corners and
do not provide high quality, consistent, and sufficient driver
education. FMCSA has also strengthened its enforcement of English
language proficiency requirements,\53\ which many commenters on the IFR
identified as a barrier to highway safety because a lack of familiarity
with U.S. roadways and traffic laws and the inability to read and
interpret signage easily leads to unsafe driving practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See e.g., FMCSA's May 20, 2025 English Language Proficiency
Policy (MC-SEE-2025-0001), available at <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-05/FMCSA%20ELP%20Guidance%20with%20Attachments%20Final%20%285-20-2025%29_Redacted.pdf">https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-05/FMCSA%20ELP%20Guidance%20with%20Attachments%20Final%20%285-20-2025%29_Redacted.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7068]]
d. Individual Assessment vs. Collective Punishment
Many individuals stated that drivers should be evaluated based on
their individual record and compliance history, rather than being
subject to collective punishment based on the actions of a few or
immigration status. Several individuals, stated that immigrant drivers
who passed the same training, testing, and safety requirements as U.S.
citizens should not be treated differently. An individual said it is
wrong to punish those with officially issued permits and documents from
the United States. Another individual said that CDL eligibility should
be based on safety and competency criteria instead of factors unrelated
to a person's ability to operate a commercial vehicle.
Multiple individuals objected to what they perceived as collective
punishment of an entire group based on the actions of a few
individuals, and stated that the vast majority of non-domiciled CDL
holders were responsible, law-abiding drivers who should not be
penalized. Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice said that the IFR
is unjust and counterproductive. Multiple individuals wrote that
drivers should not be penalized for administrative errors or oversight
failures by SDLAs. Another individual stated that bureaucratic delays
are not a driver's fault, and they should not be punished for
inefficiencies in the immigration system.
FMCSA Response
Again, FMCSA highlights that this rule is not intended to be
punitive, but rather to improve highway safety. There is a statutory
duty to ensure a driver's fitness and investigate driver history before
issuing a CDL because doing so uncovers prior unsafe behaviors that
would prevent the driver from receiving a CDL. SDLAs are not able to
perform a foreign driver history review for most non-domiciled drivers,
thus these drivers may have a history of unsafe behavior that remains
unknown due to the lack of vetting. This necessitates narrowing the
pool of drivers who are eligible to receive non-domiciled drivers to
those whose driver histories can be vetted as part of the consular
vetting and interagency screening. Moreover, even if SDLAs were able to
obtain foreign driver histories, States would face a substantial burden
in evaluating those records, which would require knowledge of how
traffic laws in the driver's country of domicile compare to domestic
laws. Narrowing the pool of drivers eligible for non-domiciled CDLs is
the only reasonable way to ensure that SDLAs are only issuing non-
domiciled CDLs to eligible applicants, because they will be able to
rely on safety determinations already made by Federal agencies with the
necessary experience.
FMCSA also reiterates that, based on the recent APRs and
investigations into individual crashes, the SDLAs are unable to
administer the existing regulations adequately. Therefore, narrowing
the discretion given to the States regarding the issuance of non-
domiciled CDLs is likely to lead to improved compliance and better
safety outcomes.
e. Differentiation Between Class A and Class B Licenses
One individual suggested that the rule should differentiate between
Class A and Class B licenses, noting that the recent FMCSA restriction
arose from incidents involving Class A tractor-trailer drivers engaged
in freight transport, while Class B licensing governed passenger
vehicles such as school buses and coaches, which were subject to more
stringent testing, supervision, and background-check requirements. An
individual provided detailed analyses comparing the safety records of
Class A (combination vehicles) and Class B (single-unit vehicles)
operations, arguing that the rule failed to distinguish between these
different risk profiles. The commenter stated that Class B operations,
particularly school buses, had significantly better safety records than
Class A operations. The individual cited data showing that school buses
had a fatality rate of about 0.2 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-
miles traveled, compared to about 1.5 fatalities per 100 million
vehicle-miles traveled for cars and 1.3 to 1.7 fatal crashes per 100
million large-truck miles. The individual also stated that Class B
vehicles were inherently safer because they lacked articulation points,
operated at lower speeds within city limits, followed structured
routes, and faced less severe weather exposure.
FMCSA Response
The statutory requirement to investigate driver history in order to
ensure safety fitness prior to issuing a CDL does not differentiate
between CDL classes. As previously stated, it is not possible to
perform this investigation for most non-domiciled drivers. Moreover,
for similar reasons to those cited above, FMCSA finds it would be
impractical to maintain different standards for Class A and Class B CDL
holders, as this would require SDLAs to administer two different sets
of rules. As stated above, many SDLAs have already demonstrated an
inability to administer the existing regulations properly; creating a
more complex regulatory system at this point in time is likely to
diminish compliance even further. Therefore, FMCSA finds it appro
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 13, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.