[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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; [email protected]. 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 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0622/document 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 www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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 https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/employment-authorization-document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://www.uscis.gov/employment-authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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., https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/interim-final-ruling-restoring-integrity-issuance-non-domiciled-drivers-licenses-cdl; https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/order-granting-administrative-stay-interim-final-rule-titled-restoring-integrity-issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7.
\7\ https://truckingresearch.org/2022/10/predicting-truck-crash-involvement-2022-update/.
\8\ Commercial Driver Safety Risk Factors (CDSRF), available at
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49620.
\9\ Driver Issues: Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Literature
Review, available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions (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\ https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/form-i-797-types-and-functions (last visited Feb. 9, 2026).
\14\ https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-797c-notice-of-action (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 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/active_daca_recipients_fy2025_q3.xlsx.
\17\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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., https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20428;
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14276; https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/LTBCF%202022-%20508.pdf [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\ https://county10.com/officials-investigators-share-details-about-i-80-tunnel-crash-near-green-river-at-feb-15-press-conference-with-governor-gordon/ (accessed Dec. 16, 2025).
\38\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY25MH004.aspx
(accessed Dec. 12, 2025); https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/02/14/huge-explosions-multiple-fatalities-from-fiery-crash-in-green-river-tunnel/ (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\ https://www.dot.state.wy.us/news/fatal-crash-occurs-outside-green-river-not-part-of-i-80-detour (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\ https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/03/18/brief-trucker-suspected-of-causing-i-80-crash-that-killed-another-trucker/
(accessed Dec. 18, 2025).
\41\ https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/07/08/ukrainian-trucker-who-killed-another-trucker-in-crash-gets-90-days/ (accessed Dec. 18,
2025); https://cdllife.com/2025/driver-who-admitted-he-closed-his-eyes-and-did-nothingduring-fatal-black-ice-crash-given-90-day-sentence/ (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\ 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
(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\ https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/21/criminal-illegal-alien-kills-indiana-man-after-driving-semi-truck-oncoming-traffic
(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\ https://abc7.com/post/pomona-high-school-coach-wife-among-3-killed-chain-reaction-crash-10-freeway-ontario-suspect-jashanpreet-singh-expected-court/18062397/ (accessed Dec. 15, 2025);
https://abc7.com/post/dui-charge-dropped-jashanpreet-singh-semitruck-driver-deadly-10-freeway-crash-ontario/18114192/ (accessed
Dec. 15, 2025); https://apnews.com/article/crash-jashanpreet-singh-california-ad268515fbe4ff67d9376c141e8995c5 (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 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upgrade. 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\ https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/deadly-semi-truck-crash-colorado-mountain/, accessed Dec. 15, 2025; https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2025/11/03/semi-plunges-off-notorious-colorado-pass-killing-23-year-old-driver/, accessed Dec.
15, 2025.
\47\ https://cdllife.com/2025/runaway-semi-truck-bypassed-ramp-on-wolf-creek-pass-before-fatal-plummet-down-embankment-colorado-troopers-say/, 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\ 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
(accessed Dec. 15, 2025); https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/01/ice-lodges-detainer-criminal-illegal-alien-semi-truck-driver-charged-negligent (accessed Dec. 15, 2025); 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/
(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\ https://www.trains.com/pro/freight/class-i/ntsb-probing-death-of-union-pacific-conductor-in-grade-crossing-incident/
(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\ 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 (accessed Dec. 15,
2025).
\51\ 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/ (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\ https://auburnexaminer.com/judge-sets-100000-bail-in-deadly-sr-167-crash-as-prosecutors-cite-probable-cause/ (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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[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 appropriate
to maintain one simplified, clearly defined set of rules for all non-
domiciled individuals seeking CDLs, regardless of license class.
g. Comments on the Relationship Between Safety and Immigration Status
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. AFSCME stated that FMCSA's
decision to allow workers in short-term, nonimmigrant guestworker visa
programs, who have been in the United States for less time, to obtain
CDLs, but not those who have been in the United States longer, like
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, undermines
FMCSA's use of the lack of accessible driving records as a
justification for the rule. AFSCME also said the statement that current
State regulations do not allow for vetting of workers with driving
records in foreign jurisdictions is ``pretextual'' because of the
rule's exemption for workers in short-term, nonimmigrant guestworker
visa programs, remarking that government employees are incentivized to
hire safe drivers. In addition, AFSCME stated that FMCSA has not
provided evidence that immigrants with lawful work authorization pose a
larger threat to national security or safety, and cited studies
indicating the opposite is true. AFSCME added that the IFR will not be
effective in vetting CDL applicants and instead will exclude a category
of people from obtaining CDLs without any evidence that they pose a
threat to national security. Lastly AFSCME stated FMCSA failed to
consider operations of State and local government services that could
be impacted by the IFR. An individual said that there is a difference
between legal and illegal migrants, with the latter posing a legitimate
safety concern, while the former does not, which the individual stated
the IFR did not recognize. The individual expressed support for
preventing CDL issuance to illegal migrants, but not legal migrants.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees that its decision to allow workers in short-term,
nonimmigrant guestworker visa programs to obtain CDLs, but not those
[[Page 7069]]
who have been in the United States longer undermines FMCSA's use of the
lack of accessible driving records as a justification for the rule. As
described above, workers in nonimmigrant employment-based statuses
specifically for the purpose of driving vehicles requiring a CDL are
subjected to increased scrutiny, both by employers and by relevant
Federal agencies. This includes a review of prior driving history to
ensure a clean driving record, experience driving commercial vehicles
or the equivalent, and demonstration of English proficiency. Thus, in
addition to all of FMCSA's safety regulations, foreign-domiciled
individuals in an employment-based nonimmigrant status are subject to
enhanced vetting at the near-equivalency as domestic-domiciled drivers.
Other foreign-domiciled drivers do not receive this level of scrutiny
with respect to their driving qualifications and are therefore more
likely to impact highway safety negatively. This is true regardless of
whether that person has legal status and work authorization.
The comment responses previously discussed the issue of DACA
recipients holding non-domiciled CDLs. Most DACA recipients are
citizens of Mexico and have therefore never been eligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL under FMCSA's regulations because Mexico is a
jurisdiction for which the Administrator has issued an equivalency
determination and entered into a reciprocity agreement. 49 CFR
383.23(b)(1). Only since 2023 have citizens of Mexico and Canada who
are present in the United States under the DACA who satisfy specific
requirements been allowed to hold non-domiciled CDLs, though that
exception was only pursuant to the agency's enforcement discretion and
guidance and has never been codified in regulation.\54\ During this
time, SDLAs have demonstrated a pattern of not being able to 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''),
leading to the improper issuance of non-domiciled CDLs to drivers
domiciled in Canada or Mexico who were not DACA recipients. Ensuring
that there is a ``bright-line'' standard and that all foreign-domiciled
drivers are held to consistent requirements is essential in promoting
highway safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Other Comments
Two individuals said that safety on the road should be the primary
focus of CDL requirements, not immigration enforcement. The National
Education Association stated that the IFR will negatively impact school
bus service despite the lack of evidence of safety concerns for
students with non-domiciled drivers, as all of the crashes cited by
FMCSA involved large trucks, not buses. An individual said that there
have been recent reports of individuals arrested for driving semi-
trucks with no CDL at all, which the IFR would not solve. The
individual also recommended auditing CDLs to ensure they were all
issued properly. An individual said the IFR may reduce highway safety
by potentially forcing drivers into ``underground work.'' In addition,
an individual stated studies show that hit-and-run accident rates were
lower in States where immigrants have broader access to licensing. An
individual suggested that all traffic violations for all vehicles
should be strictly regulated instead of discriminating on the basis of
identity or immigration status.
The Sikh Coalition submitted a comment that provided a history of
non-domiciled CDLs and argued that there is a critical need for them in
the United States. An individual stated that the rescinded 2019
guidance requiring proper legal documentation was effective and
recognized that people authorized to work in the United States should
be allowed to work, adding that FMCSA has not provided evidence that
the policy caused safety problems, which the individual stated it did
not. However, OOIDA stated that the 2019 guidance should have never
been issued and went beyond Congressional intent of the CMVSA. OOIDA
said the combination of non-domiciled CDL regulation, guidance, and
lack of oversight for SDLAs resulted in improperly licensed foreign
drivers flooding U.S. highways. Citing studies indicating increasing
issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, OOIDA stated that this pattern is
indicative of systemic, nationwide non-compliance by SDLAs in
administering non-domiciled CDL procedures which necessitated DOT
action. An individual remarked that data supporting the categorical
exclusion of non-domiciled groups would help determine whether any
groups could qualify under a more targeted regulatory approach.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA reiterates that this rulemaking action concerns strengthening
the integrity of the non-domicile CLP and CDL process. The Agency
acknowledges that this rule will affect various sectors of the
transportation industry, including passenger transportation such as
school buses. However, the rule does not have retroactive effect,
therefore school bus service providers will have time to plan for a
potential reduction in available drivers as non-domiciled CDLs expire
and are not renewed.
Regarding instances in which individuals who do not hold CDLs have
been arrested for driving vehicle requiring a CDL, this is a problem
FMCSA is unable to prevent entirely, whether the drivers are domiciled
or not. Such individuals are potentially subject to State criminal
penalties, in addition to any civil liability resulting from crashes or
other damage while the unlicensed individual was driving. FMCSA is not
a law enforcement agency; rather, it relies on State and local law
enforcement to enforce these traffic laws and State courts to handle
civil litigation. However, FMCSA may separately assess civil penalties
against individuals who operate CMVs without a CDL, as set out in
Appendix B to 49 CFR part 386, as well as against motor carriers who
employ such individuals.
In response to the commenter who cited a reduction in hit-and-run
incidents in jurisdictions where immigrants have broader access to
licensing, FMCSA notes that this rule does not prohibit non-domiciled
individuals from obtaining any license to operate motor vehicles. It
merely prohibits certain of these individuals (i.e., those who are not
in a nonimmigrant category with an employment-based need for a CDL and
who are not subject to enhanced vetting) from obtaining a specific type
of license necessary to operate vehicles weighing over 26,000 pounds.
While some commenters stated that there is a critical need for non-
domiciled CDLs and that the rescinded 2019 guidance requiring proper
legal documentation was effective, FMCSA disagrees. That 2019 guidance,
which this rule rescinds in section IX.B.2. below, explained in part
that a foreign driver holding an EAD or an unexpired foreign passport
accompanied by an approved Form I-94 may obtain a non-domiciled CDL. In
authorizing non-domiciled CDLs, Congress did not intend for them to
become a crutch for the industry; rather, they were to be the exception
to the rule that CDL holders be domiciled in a State. FMCSA finds
[[Page 7070]]
that the 2019 guidance was not effective, hence its rescission. FMCSA
agrees with OOIDA that there has been a pattern indicative of systemic,
nationwide non-compliance by SDLAs in administering non-domiciled CDL
procedures, which was a major factor in the agency promulgating this
rule. While one individual sought data supporting the categorical
exclusion of non-domiciled groups, as FMCSA has explained, based on
existing limitations it is a near impossibility to obtain the data, and
FMCSA explains the rational for categorically excluding foreign-
domiciled drivers without a verifiable driver history throughout this
final rule.
4. Justification for the IFR
a. ``Good Cause'' Exception
Accion Opportunity Fund, AFL-CIO, Asian Law Caucus, Citizens
Rulemaking Alliance, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
MALDEF, the joint AG comment, and numerous individuals stated that
FMCSA improperly invoked the ``good cause'' exception under the APA to
bypass the notice-and-comment requirements. They stated that the APA
requires agencies to provide notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and
an opportunity for public comment before a rule becomes effective,
unless the agency finds ``good cause'' that notice and public procedure
are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance and multiple individuals stated that
courts have consistently held that the ``good cause'' exception should
be ``narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced,'' and is
limited to emergency situations or when delay would cause ``real
harm.''
Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, Maryland Department of Transportation
Motor Vehicle Administration, the joint AG comment, and multiple
individual commenters stated that FMCSA's justification for invoking
the ``good cause'' exception was insufficient. They stated that FMCSA
cited five fatal crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders, systemic
documentation issues identified through APRs, and a potential surge in
applications during a comment period. The commenters stated that these
justifications did not constitute an emergency or imminent hazard that
would justify bypassing notice-and-comment procedures. Asian Law
Caucus, Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, and Maine Secretary of State
stated that FMCSA's claim that providing notice would lead to a
``surge'' in applications was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
They, along with an individual, stated that FMCSA could have used less
drastic measures to address its concerns while still following the
APA's notice-and-comment requirements. Suggestions included issuing an
NPRM with a short comment period, implementing temporary enforcement
priorities, or using existing compliance mechanisms to address state-
level problems.
Conversely, SBTC and three individuals supported FMCSA's use of the
``good cause'' exception. They stated that the exception was properly
invoked due to the imminent safety risks demonstrated by recent crashes
and the need to prevent further harm. SBTC agreed that FMCSA has
provided sufficient evidence to support its good cause exception and
asserted that it is unreasonable to assume that the large truck
fatality incidents provided by FMCSA are the only incidents involving
non-domiciled CDL holders. SBTC further stated that it would be
unreasonable to expect FMCSA to have pre-IFR data readily available
from the States because they would have to both supply the data and
admit to issuing CDLs unlawfully. SBTC provided additional accident/
fatality information from its own review of NHTSA accident data in
support of the IFR. An individual stated that the justification for the
``good cause'' exception is reasonable, but sufficient data has not
been provided by FMCSA to support it.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA found good cause to issue the IFR without prior notice and
comment and to make it effective immediately based on a determination
that notice and public comment were both contrary to the public
interest and impracticable. As discussed in Section VI.A of the IFR, it
was necessary to implement immediately strict standards concerning the
issuance and renewal of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to address a
recently discovered, two-front crisis that constituted an imminent
hazard to public safety and a direct threat to national security. The
dangerous consequences of having overly broad eligibility requirements
combined with a systemic breakdown in State implementation were
illustrated by the five fatal crashes highlighted in the IFR. These
crashes, which were not meant to be an exhaustive list, involved
drivers who either held non-domiciled CDLs issued in accordance with
existing regulations or who were mistakenly issued a standard CDL
instead of a non-domiciled CDL. Most of the crashes described there
would have been prevented had the IFR been in place. Furthermore,
providing advance notice through an NPRM was impracticable and contrary
to the public interest because it would have actively subverted the
rule's purpose by creating a foreseeable and concentrated surge in
applications that would have exacerbated the current safety crisis. As
explained in the IFR, this risk of a concentrated surge was not
speculative; rather, it was borne out by data drawn from another recent
change in CDL licensing standards, which showed a surge in applications
for CDLs in the months immediately preceding the compliance date for
those changes to levels that were approximately twice as high as the
same time period in the previous year (90 FR 46514-46515).
By issuing an IFR that set forth the nature and substance of the
rule with sufficient detail to put the public on notice, explained the
legal authority and rationale for the regulation, and provided a 60-day
comment period, FMCSA has satisfied the notice-and-comment procedures
for this final rule.\55\ The public availed itself of the opportunity
to provide comments (with over 8,000 received) and FMCSA has carefully
considered those comments in writing this final rule. Thus, while FMCSA
maintains that its IFR was properly issued under the good cause
exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Agency
finds it appropriate to utilize the standard 30-day delay in the
effective date for the final rule. Stakeholders have been on notice
since publication of the IFR that these rules are being amended,
numerous States have paused issuance of non-domiciled CDLs while the
IFR is stayed and the final rule is pending, and there is no longer the
same risk of a surge in applicants trying to obtain or renew a non-
domiciled CDL in advance of the rule change. Therefore, the process by
which this final rule has been issued has cured any alleged failure
under the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c); see also Little Sisters of the
Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683-
84 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Insufficient Data and Lack of Justification
AFT, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the
Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, the Potential Development Association
and many individuals, stated that FMCSA failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support its claim that the rule enhances safety. AFT, The
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Asylum Seeker
Advocacy Project, and the Maine Secretary of State stated that
[[Page 7071]]
FMCSA ignored the rigorous safety requirements already embedded in
CDLs, such as the mandatory skills and knowledge tests, medical
certification, and disqualification of drivers with serious traffic
violations. They stated that these existing requirements ensure all CDL
holders are thoroughly vetted for safety, regardless of their
immigration status. AFT stated that rather than considering the
efficacy of these measures, FMCSA arbitrarily aims at certain statuses
without provided any rational, nondiscriminatory connection between
these targeted groups and road safety.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Law
Caucus, Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles, Oregon Department of
Transportation, Maine Equal Justice, King County Metro, New York State
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and several individuals
stated that FMCSA cited only five fatal crashes involving non-domiciled
CDL holders in 2025, which represented a small fraction of the total
fatal crashes involving commercial vehicles. They stated that this
limited data did not demonstrate a systemic safety issue that would
justify the rule's restrictions. The joint AG comment stated that this
lack of evidence is sufficient alone to render the IFR arbitrary,
capricious, and unlawful. The joint AG comment added that FMCSA's own
data indicates that CDL holders that will be excluded under the IFR
have lower rates of fatal crashes than drivers who will not be impacted
by the new restrictions. Oregon Department of Transportation stated
that anecdotal examples are insufficient to justify the conclusion that
current eligibility standards are overly broad or that non-domiciled
drivers inherently pose a greater risk. Delaware Division of Motor
Vehicles suggested that, without statistically valid evidence, States
cannot assess necessity or proportionality of the policy change.
Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles suggested that FMCSA commission a
study or ongoing data collection to better compare crash rates,
violations, and driving behavior between non-domiciled and domiciled
CDL holders.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian Law
Caucus, and multiple individuals stated that the rule is arbitrary and
capricious because FMCSA failed to establish a rational connection
between the facts found and the policy choices made. They stated that
FMCSA did not provide evidence that restricting CDL eligibility based
on immigration status would enhance safety. An individual stated that
under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, an agency must
articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made, and FMCSA failed to do so.
Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration
stated that they are interested in understanding what information FMCSA
has received and analyzed to determine this population of drivers
presents an increased safety risk. Maryland Department of
Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration said that they are unaware
of any data which indicates that non-domiciled drivers are less safe
than other CDL drivers, given that the testing, and now, training
processes are identical. If there is research indicating an increased
risk on the roads with this population, Maryland Department of
Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration said they are interested to
work with FMCSA on potential solutions as they work to eliminate
fatalities and serious injuries on roadways. Similarly, the Public
Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments suggested that FMCSA
consider collecting additional data to better understand the problem
facing it, such as from States, employers, or other entities that could
report data about crashes. The Potential Development Association and an
individual requested that FMCSA conduct and publish comprehensive data
comparing crash rates among all CDL holders, both domestic and non-
domiciled, before implementing such restrictions.
FMCSA Response
In response to comments about insufficient data to justify the
rule, FMCSA has discussed the data limitations above. As explained in
section VI.B.3.b, the systems with crash data available to FMCSA do not
contain information regarding whether a license was a non-domiciled CLP
or CDL. Producing the data the commenters seek is not possible with
currently available tools, and the commenters have not provided
alternative comprehensive sources of data that FMCSA could consider or
rely on for the type of analysis requested by commenters. However, as
laid out throughout the final rule, it is FMCSA's conclusion based on
subject matter expertise that there are clear safety benefits of
restricting unvetted drivers from operating CMVs on the Nation's
highways.
c. Contradictions in FMCSA's Justification
AFT, the Asian Law Caucus, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and
the joint AG comment stated that FMCSA's justification for the rule
contained contradictions. They said that FMCSA claimed the rule is
necessary because States could not verify the driving histories of
individuals from foreign jurisdictions, yet the rule allowed H-2A, H-
2B, and E-2 visa holders to obtain CDLs despite potentially having
driving histories that exist predominantly in foreign jurisdictions.
MALDEF stated that the agency failed to consider that the driving
histories of many excluded immigrants are as accessible as those of the
immigrants who can still obtain non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs under the
IFR. The Asian Law Caucus stated that the IFR's reliance on the
inability of States to compel foreign jurisdictions to produce an
applicant's driving history in some circumstances does not justify its
exclusion of almost 200,000 drivers in all circumstances, especially
when there are alternatives to vet applicants of these permits and
licenses. Washington Trucking Associations stated that limiting
eligibility to only three visa categories without clearly demonstrating
a safety-related justification risks undermining the effectiveness and
durability of the rule. AFT stated that FMCSA's rule excluded DACA
recipients, who came to the United States as young children and learned
to drive in the United States, while allowing temporary workers with H-
2A and H-2B visas who would have driving histories that exist
predominantly in foreign jurisdictions.
FMCSA Response
As discussed throughout this final rule, the limitation to certain
categories of visa holders is designed to increase and ensure proper
vetting of driver history. These categories of drivers are sponsored by
employers who scrutinize the applicant's employment history and driving
record, as well as by other Federal agencies during the employment
authorization and application for entry process. Drivers who are not
sponsored for entry and employment in the United States specifically
for the purpose of driving CMVs do not receive this level of scrutiny,
and there is no practical way for SDLAs to perform this rigorous level
of review for foreign nationals who are not individually sponsored for
employment requiring a CDL or who otherwise are not subject to the U.S.
Department of State's enhanced vetting.
[[Page 7072]]
As previously discussed, most DACA recipients are citizens of
Mexico who have therefore never been eligible for a non-domiciled CLP
or CDL under FMCSA's regulations because Mexico is a jurisdiction for
which the Administrator has issued an equivalency determination and
entered into a reciprocity agreement. 49 CFR 383.23(b)(1). It has only
been since 2023 that citizens of Mexico and Canada who are present in
the United States under the DACA who satisfy specific requirements have
been allowed to hold non-domiciled CDLs, though that exception was only
pursuant to the agency's enforcement discretion and guidance and has
never been codified in regulation.\56\ Therefore, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Immediate Effective Date of IFR
Real Women in Trucking stated that the immediate effective date of
the IFR was justified, as any delay would risk a spike in fraudulent
applications. An individual also said the immediate effective date was
justified because systemic breakdown in non-domiciled CDL issuance,
combined with multiple preventable fatalities, constitutes an
emergency. Another individual said that historical precedent, such as
United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (2010), allows the rule to proceed
with good cause and become effective immediately. An individual
recommended that the IFR be applied retroactively, since refugee work
permits were issued for five years under the Biden administration. An
individual said there should be a 30-day grace period, after which all
non-domiciled CDL licenses should be revoked.
Many individuals recommended implementing a transition period, for
example delaying the effective date of the IFR by one to five years, to
prevent disruptions. Punjab Trans Inc., RKL Express Inc., and some
individuals also stated there should be a transition plan and at
minimum a grace period to protect existing legal operators. An
individual stated that FMCSA is obligated to provide a transition
period to mitigate harm and cited a court decision that held that
sudden policy changes without sufficient justification are arbitrary.
Another individual stated that the immediate effective date has created
widespread confusion and instability, as well as burden on SDLAs and
businesses. An individual recommended providing support mechanisms for
drivers who have invested time and resources into their profession. An
individual recommended that during a transition period, new licenses
should not be issued, but existing licenses should be renewed. An
individual said that a more controlled implementation of regulations
would give trucking companies enough time to replace drivers that no
longer qualify for a CDL.
An individual recommended suspending the effective date of the IFR
until a proper rulemaking process, as legally mandated, is completed.
Another individual requested that FMCSA withdraw or stay the IFR and
proceed via an evidence-based notice of proposed rulemaking focused on
verification, training, and SDLA compliance. Two individuals also
requested a judicial stay of enforcement pending full judicial review.
An individual requested that non-domiciled CDLs remain active until a
final decision on the IFR is made by the courts. An individual
recommended allowing drivers to keep using their valid CDLs until their
original expiration date in order to both protect the livelihood of
drivers and the Nation's supply chain. An individual urged FMCSA to
delay the effective date of the rule until guidance is issued and
workers are guaranteed due process. Two individuals recommended
establishing a transition period allowing existing CDL holders to
continue working until their immigration status or work authorization
is decided. Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles stated that immediate
compliance expectations create major operational and legal challenges
for SDLAs. In addition, Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles said that
the IFR imposes significant administrative, programming, documentation-
retention, SAVE-query, and in-person renewal requirements without an
implementation window. The Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles
requested clarification on the emergency justification and recommended
a reasonable phase-in period. An individual recommended that
enforcement be phased to give States time to update systems. Similarly,
another individual stated that States under corrective action plans
face administrative burden, and requested FMCSA consider a phased
compliance timeline and clarification guidance to avoid unfair
cancellation of CDLs while the IFR is under review.
FMCSA Response
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency is permitted to make a rule
effective immediately upon publication, for good cause. For the reasons
explained above in section VI.B.4.a, FMCSA found good cause to make the
IFR effective immediately based on a determination that notice and
public procedure were both contrary to the public interest and
impracticable.
FMCSA believes it was in the public's interest to take immediate
action to address the inconsistencies and failures discovered through
its recent APRs of various States that demonstrated acute systemic
problems across the country in the non-domiciled CDL issuance
processes. Notably, FMCSA discovered that approximately one in four
non-domiciled CDLs issued in California were not compliant with the
requirements in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. It was therefore in the
public's safety interest to ensure that drivers would not be permitted
to take advantage of the deficiencies or the overly broad eligibility
requirements that permit such a large number of drivers with unknown
driver safety records to obtain CDLs and CLPs. FMCSA noted that
California issued approximately 3,820 non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs in
June 2025 alone and that, extrapolating from the 2025 APR finding in
June, this could have led to the issuance of potentially over 1,000
improperly issued credentials for each month following a proposed rule
up until the rule would have been finalized.
FMCSA also emphasizes that many of the commenters who noted their
inability to renew their CDL after publication of the IFR would likely
have experienced the same issue in the absence of the rule. During the
APR process, if FMCSA determines that existing non-domiciled CLPs and
CDLs, issued before the September 29, 2025 effective date of the IFR,
failed to comply with the FMCSRs in effect at the time of issuance,
FMCSA could require, as part of the State's corrective action plan,
that the SDLA revoke those credentials and reissue them only if
reissuance would be appropriate under the current standards (which
means the pre-IFR standards, due to the stay order pending review of
the IFR that was granted by the D.C. Circuit). However, many States
have been required to pause issuance of all non-domiciled CDLs as part
of the corrective action plan for the deficiencies discovered under the
APR and others have
[[Page 7073]]
voluntarily paused issuance of all non-domiciled CDLs to conduct
internal audits of their issuance procedures and processes apart from
FMCSA's APR process. The public should not blame the issuance of the
IFR for States' required or proactive steps to restore integrity to
their non-domiciled credentialing process. Nor should the time and
effort the States need to invest to fix their broken processes be
attributed to the IFR.
Finally, FMCSA notes that the IFR was ultimately stayed by the D.C.
Circuit, and the revised regulations have not been in effect since
November 10, 2025. For the reasons described above in Section
VI.B.4.a., FMCSA has determined not to give this rule an immediate
effective date. Therefore, the issue of an immediate effective date is
moot and is no longer an issue at this stage in the rulemaking process.
In response to commenters who sought rescission of the IFR and
continued issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, FMCSA notes that the IFR is
not currently in effect and the agency has carefully reviewed the
comments received during the comment process. Under the IFR, and now
under this final rule, the agency did not completely prohibit issuance
of non-domiciled CDLs but has instead narrowed the categories of
foreign-domiciled individuals who are eligible to receive these
licenses. U.S. nationals who live in jurisdictions that do not issue
CDLs remain eligible to receive non-domiciled CDLs in any State that
issues such licenses.
FMCSA does not find phased enforcement to be a practicable
approach. The CDL program is intended to be consistent across States,
and the safety concerns raised throughout this rule are clear. States
are not required to issue non-domiciled CDLs, so they are free to pause
issuance for any length of time if they need additional time to update
systems and implement procedures.
e. Public Participation and Requests To Extend the Comment Period
Three individuals requested extending the comment period. Citizens
Rulemaking Alliance requested that FMCSA convert the IFR to an NPRM
with at least a 60- or 90-day comment period and 30-day effective date.
Citizens Rulemaking Alliance elaborated that the sweeping policy
changes introduced by the IFR necessitate public comment opportunity.
Similarly, six individuals requested the IFR either be withdrawn or
reissued as an NPRM. Three individuals also recommended holding
listening sessions and public hearings. An individual requested a
supplemental notice and comment period on non-urgent sections of the
IFR. Three individuals requested that implementation of the IFR be
suspended pending a full notice and comment process.
Teamsters California, the joint AG comment, and an individual
asserted that FMCSA issued the IFR without giving the public notice and
an opportunity to comment, as required by the APA. Teamsters California
stated that through public consultation, FMCSA would have been better
able to assess the alleged need for and potential harm caused by the
IFR. Relatedly, an individual stated that the lack of notice-and-
comment period denied the public any opportunity to contribute crucial
data, experience, and legal analysis before the IFR became law. Two
individuals stated the lack of a proper notice-and-comment period
undermines public trust and violates the principles of fair
administrative process. An individual said that conducting a notice-
and-comment period would help ensure the IFR is grounded in reality.
Another individual stated the lack of due process leaves drivers and
States scrambling to comply while bearing administrative burden.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA provided ample opportunity for public comment by providing a
60-day comment period, which is a standard comment period for many
rules and which was adequate for the public to express their views on a
rule of this length and complexity. FMCSA does not believe it is
necessary to increase public participation in other ways, such as by
providing a public hearing. As noted above, the public availed itself
of the opportunity to provide comments (with over 8,000 received) and
FMCSA has carefully considered those comments in writing this final
rule.
5. Implementation
a. Documentation Requirements
Another individual requested FMCSA reconsider requiring an
unexpired passport. The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
recommended FMCSA clarify how I-797s for green card holders play into
the commercial credential issuance process and if they should be
considered when reviewing immigration documents or completing a SAVE
inquiry.
CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom wrote that
requiring an unexpired passport and Form I-94/94A establishes a
necessary chain of verification. America First Legal Foundation wrote
that the revised registration requirements ensure lawful admission,
verifiable status, and a documented, job-specific basis for holding a
CDL. Washington Trucking Associations wrote that they supported efforts
to strengthen SDLA vetting procedures, but citizenship and immigration
status is a protected status in some States therefore establishing
Federal requirements for SDLAs to review supporting documentation
preempts these State prohibitions.
An anonymous commenter said that people who enter illegally do not
have an I-94 form so illegal CDL holders should be easily identified.
The individual said that work permit categories should be sufficient to
identify a person's status. An individual said that form I-94 is clear
evidence of lawful presence, consistent with the requirements of both
DHS and FMCSA prior to this rule. Real Women in Trucking expressed
support for the use of the I-94/94A form and said that it ensures
lawful entry and employment purpose. Five individuals suggested that
FMCSA add I-94s with ``Admitted as Refugee with Asylum Granted'' to the
list of acceptable forms in lieu of an unexpired passport.
An individual stated that the IFR's definition of ``foreign
jurisdiction'' excludes U.S. territories, such as Guam or Puerto Rico,
but the documents in Table 1 include only State-issued documents, and
recommended that FMCSA explicitly list acceptable documents for
residents of U.S. territories, which issue their own credentials and ID
cards, in order to prevent applicants from being wrongfully denied.
FMCSA Response
As mentioned in the IFR and the comment response above, EADs are
not sufficient for the non-domiciled licensing process for a variety of
issues. The only standard documents that can prove identification and
lawful status in an approved employment-based nonimmigrant status are
the Form I-94/94A and unexpired foreign passport. The other options
presented by commenters are impracticable because they are either not
federally issued documents, still rely on the EAD, or do not show the
required proof that an applicant has been vetted under the process
outlined above.
In addition, the concerns raised in the comment regarding citizens
of U.S. territories being wrongfully denied non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs
are incorrect. The citizens of U.S. territories have
[[Page 7074]]
access to acceptable documentation under Table 1 and have always been
required to provide such documentation to obtain a non-domiciled CLP or
CDL.
b. Expiration Date for Non-Domiciled CLPs and CDLs
Real Women in Trucking stated that the one-year expiration date
prevents abuse. The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety expressed
support for the expiration date requirement. CPAC Foundation's Center
for Regulatory Freedom said that the expiration date requirement will
curtail the ability of foreign nationals to establish indefinite,
undocumented tenure. Four individuals expressed support for the
expiration date requirement because it improves integrity.
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles stated that the
South Carolina Code of Laws prohibits the issuance of a driver's
license for less than one year, which conflicts with the proposed
requirement that that a non-domiciled CDL must not exceed the
applicant's ``admit until'' date or one year, whichever is sooner. The
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles added that the South
Carolina General Assembly is considering a bill that would amend this
requirement. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA) stated that the requirement for the expiration data to match
the expiration date of Form 1-94/1-94A or one year, whichever is
sooner, conflicts with REAL ID requirements, such as that requiring
States to use SAVE verification to determine the appropriate expiration
date for credentials issued to those with temporary lawful status.
AAMVA requested clarification on how States should reconcile
differences between the FMCSA requirement and REAL ID requirements and
also requested the agency coordinate with DHS on the issue. AAMVA
suggested using the SAVE response to meet both sets of requirements and
suggested revisions to the rule text to accommodate this. AAMVA also
recommended enhancing SAVE to provide clear responses on eligibility
based on the three visa categories eligible for non-domiciled CDLs
under the IFR.
The Potential Development Association recommended directly linking
the duration of the non-domiciled CDL to the duration of the
applicant's legal status documents, with a maximum duration of one
year, in order to ensure the CDL holder continues to meet work status
requirements and enable monitoring of driver qualifications through a
regular review mechanism. Accion Opportunity Fund recommended extending
CDL duration to match the applicant's Federal work authorization, with
online check-ins or safety audits to ensure continued compliance,
noting that a one-year duration imposes unnecessary burden on drivers
and states. Washington Trucking Association wrote that CDL and CLP
expiration should be directly tied to verified employment
authorization, and there is not a strong safety justification for
yearly renewal requirements.
An individual recommended requiring all States to tie expiration
dates to the expiration date of the applicant's legal status and
provide a process for extending licenses when legal status is renewed.
An individual recommended tying the CDL expiration date to the earlier
of the EAD/SAVE date or one year. Many individuals recommended tying
the expiration date to the EAD and medical certification expiration
date. Another individual recommended tying the expiration date to the
earlier of the EAD or Form 1-94 date. An individual recommended tying
the expiration date to the earlier of the applicant's legal status
duration or one to two years. An individual recommended allowing
renewal of CDLs up until the expiration of the holder's EAD or work
permit. Several individual commenters recommended expiration dates to
match visa or permit duration. Three individuals recommended setting
the expiration date at one year to enhance oversight. Another
individual recommended setting the expiration date to one or two years.
An individual expressed opposition to the expiration date requirement
and recommended reverting to prior requirements or renewing driver's
licenses annually. An individual stated that a five-year CDL expiration
date with SAVE verification would save drivers time and resources.
The Asian Law Caucus wrote that FMCSA did not explain the
requirement for matching expiration date in the IFR, leaving the public
to guess as to the rationale, which is arbitrary and capricious. The
Asian Law Caucus also wrote that the IFR does not explain why the one-
year period of validity allows consistency and reduces confusion but
another time period such as two years would not offer the same benefit.
An individual remarked that the IFR will take at least one year to be
fully effective, as there could be drivers who under the new rule still
have valid licenses for a year, since there is no provision to revoke
those drivers' licenses. Some individuals stated that the expiration
date tied to duration of the applicant's work authorization results in
drivers temporarily losing their ability to work due to administrative
delays or renewal processes for their work permits, conflicting with
human rights and the principle of equality. Many individuals stated
that the difference between expiration dates on their CDL and EAD is an
error on the SDLA's part, and they should not be punished for it.
FMCSA Response
The maximum one-year period of validity for a non-domiciled CLP or
CDL ensures that individuals are subject to the review of their
nonimmigrant status at least once per year, or sooner, based on their
I-94/94A expiration date. The eligibility status of foreign-domiciled
drivers may change suddenly based on a variety of factors. While this
final rule requires SDLAs to revoke non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs if they
become aware that an individual's status changes such that they no
longer are in an allowable nonimmigrant category, this rule does not
establish a formal process for notifying SDLAs of such a change and it
is possible that an SDLA may not be aware of such a change in status
for a variety of reasons. This would result in a driver that is no
longer eligible for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL potentially driving with
a license that looks to be valid on its face but is no longer a
properly issued license. Given the possibility that a change in status
may occur without the SDLA's knowledge in such a situation, it is
necessary to verify an individual's lawful status on a regular basis of
no longer than one-year to ensure that all non-domiciled CLP and CDL
holders are actually eligible to be operating CMVs. This addresses the
safety gap created when non-domiciled licenses are not reviewed for
years at a time, resulting in ineligible drivers operating CMVs and
putting the public at risk. The expiration date requirements mitigate
the safety risk of invalid CDLs remaining in circulation should the
status of thousands of non-domiciled CDL holders suddenly change based
on potential administrative or judicial changes to an individual's
status.
FMCSA is also aware of some confusion about the one-year maximum
period of validity and adds language for the sake of clarity in the
regulatory text of this final rule to state explicitly that no non-
domiciled CLP or CDL may be issued for a period longer than one year,
regardless of the expiration date on the documentation provided during
the application process.
FMCSA does not believe the concern about the expiration date
provision conflicting with REAL ID requirements is warranted. The
regulations at 6 CFR
[[Page 7075]]
37.21 state that ``States shall not issue a temporary or limited-term
driver's license or identification card . . . [f]or a time period
longer than the expiration of the applicant's authorized stay in the
United States, or, if there is no expiration date, for a period longer
than one year.'' In addition, ``States must verify the information
presented to establish lawful status through SAVE, or another method
approved by DHS.'' These requirements are not conflict with the
provisions in this final rule.
c. Verification of Status and Use of SAVE by SDLAs
An individual specifically stated that subjecting drivers to a full
SAVE query and two-person review every time they need a replacement
card imposes unnecessary burden and recommended instead a streamlined
pathway of accepting proof of identify and a signed affidavit, with a
full SAVE query only when fraud is suspected. The individual also said
the ``substantial compliance'' benchmark in 49 CFR 384.301 (q) lacks
any quantifiable metric, leading to uncertainty in how SDLAs will be
assessed by FMCSA.
The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety and three individuals
expressed support for the requirement to confirm lawful immigration
status in the specified category. An individual urged FMCSA to remove
improperly issued or unsafe licenses and strengthen the verification
process for all CDL holders. The Potential Development Association
recommended requiring a two-person verification process for reviewing
an applicant's background investigation. AAMVA requested that FMCSA
clarify that all States will be required to modify their existing non-
domiciled credential designs to include the word ``non-domiciled'' on
the face of the credential before resuming issuance, noting such a
change may take several months to implement. An individual stated that
grouping all drivers into a generalized category, such as ``non-
domiciled'' or ``temporary'' does not reflect legal distinctions under
Federal law, and results in confusion and unnecessary barriers. Another
individual stated that FMCSA should require the highest standard of
identification and security screening for drivers involved in the
transport of critical domestic supplies to reduce the risk of attacks.
CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom, the Oklahoma
Department of Public Safety, the Potential Development Association,
Real Women in Trucking, United LLC, Solo Flight Transport, and many
individuals expressed support for SAVE requirements. The National
Association for Pupil Transportation, the National School
Transportation Association, and the New Jersey School Bus Contractors
Association (NJSBCA) urged FMCSA to provide guidance on the proper use
of SAVE. NJSBCA recommended FMCSA work with DHS and U.S. Department of
Justice on uniformity in verification procedures and to streamline
process and address implementation challenges.
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles stated they have
discontinued the issuance of non-domiciled CDLs in response to the IFR,
but added that previously they consistently conducted SAVE queries as a
verification measure, and if the individual did not have a positive
SAVE result, they were never issued a credential. AAMVA requested
clarification on how to treat SAVE query results of ``Institute
Additional Verification'' or other results that require additional
steps. AAMVA asked if it would be appropriate to issue a temporary
credential pending additional verification, or if SDLAs are required to
deny the application pending additional verification. AAMVA also asked
if FMCSA is aware of the timeline for additional verification and the
impacts it may have. Accion Opportunity Fund recommended that FMCSA
reassess SAVE verification to permit State discretion, alternative
verification methods, and a formal appeals mechanism, noting that there
have been documented SAVE data errors and processing delays. Accion
Opportunity Fund also recommended requiring SDLAs to log and publicly
report SAVE ``tentative non-confirmation'' and delay rates and creating
a Federal-State audit and training program to improve data accuracy and
reduce wrongful denials.
An individual stated that the requirement for a separate SAVE query
may silo information technology (IT) workflows and recommended a
unified SAVE-query workflow to streamline operations and ensure
consistency. The individual also stated FMCSA did not offer guidance on
what to do when SAVE is temporarily unavailable or returns an ``initial
validation'' response, and recommended allowing an unexpired Form I-94
and foreign passport in such a situation, provided the query is
performed again after system restoration The individual also
recommended implementing an automated SAVE response workflow that auto-
escalates ineligibility flags and logs responses in a tamper-evident
audit trail. An individual recommended improving SAVE verification
instead of excluding entire groups of people from receiving CDLs. Three
individuals warned that the SAVE system is known to produce errors and
mismatches, creating administrative and operational problems and
resulting in qualified applicants being wrongfully denied. An
individual urged FMCSA to make it easier for SDLAs to understand how to
handle SAVE mismatches, keep track of applicants who change their
immigration status, and make sure all SDLAs follow the same steps.
Another individual stated that the SAVE process is often applied
inconsistently and urged FMCSA to ensure stronger training, oversight,
and accountability for SDLA staff. Another individual requested that
FMCSA improve the accuracy and efficiency of the SAVE system to reduce
delays and errors. The National School Transportation Association
requested ``a path forward in the utilization of [SAVE] as the national
immigration status verification method.'' The individual reasoned FMCSA
could work with DHS to prioritize CDL-related SAVE checks.
FMCSA Response
Commenter concerns about the burdens on SDLAs created by the
updated non-domiciled CLP and CDL issuance process fail to consider the
safety impacts of the updates. Requiring a SAVE query to verify an
applicant's lawful status ensures that SDLAs are not relying solely on
physical documentation in the non-domiciled licensing process. Given
the frequency at which an individual's regulatory basis to hold a non-
domiciled CDL may change, it would be improper to rely solely on
physical documents that were issued months or years prior to the
application. SAVE is currently the best option available to verify an
individual's immigration status. FMCSA would allow the use of AAMVA's
Verification of Lawful Status (VLS) as a means to query SAVE if the
State can ensure that VLS is the functional equivalent of, and is
merely a pass-through for, SAVE (i.e., because a query made through VLS
automatically queries SAVE's Application Programming Interface, which
returns a response with the same data that would have been returned
under an SDLA's direct query to SAVE).
In order to fix the systemic problems in the non-domiciled CLP and
CDL issuance process discovered by FMCSA through the APR process, there
must be an established method to verify an applicant's status and
ensure that the documentation provided is accurate. Requiring anything
less would promote the same issuance problems that have resulted in
tens of thousands of
[[Page 7076]]
improperly issued non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs nationwide.
d. Renewals
Potential Development Association, Real Women in Trucking, United,
LLC, and several individuals expressed support for in-person renewals.
An individual stated that in-person renewal addresses integrity
concerns, while Real Women in Trucking stated that it eliminates mail
fraud. CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom wrote that the
in-person renewal requirement will curtail the ability of foreign
nationals to establish indefinite, undocumented tenure.
An individual stated that in-person renewals impose significant
travel burdens on rural drivers and that without remote-renewal or
limited-waiver allowance, compliance will be both impractical and
inequitable. The individual, along with Accion Opportunity Fund, said
that the final rule should permit secure remote renewals via
videoconference or through designated third-party centers. Similarly,
another individual said that in-person renewals will be difficult for
drivers engaged in interstate transportation. The Delaware Division of
Motor Vehicles and an individual said that in-person renewal places
undue burden on the logistics industry, which is already suffering from
a chronic driver shortage. An individual said that mail-in renewals
with valid EAD, Social Security Number (SSN), and State-issued Real ID
should be allowed.
An individual asked if all States will be required to run a report
and verify that currently operating drivers have appeared in person and
brought proper documentation to maintain their status. Another
individual said that, instead of cancelling CDLs, FMCSA should
eliminate CDLs at the time of renewal if proper documentation is not
provided. Eight individuals suggested that renewals should be limited
to one year at a time.
FMCSA Response
Providing the required documents annually for in-person renewals is
also necessary to ensure that applicants can prove their identity,
prove their lawful status, and be subjected to a thorough review of
both. While this in-person process may represent a burden for
applicants, the findings of the State APRs show that this is necessary.
The automatic renewal process and mailing of licenses has resulted in a
number of improperly issued licenses. In-person renewals ensure that
documentation is reviewed and verified in SAVE prior to the issuance of
a new non-domiciled CLP or CDL. The burden of this process is
outweighed by the safety benefit of significantly reducing the risk of
issuing improper non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs under the current automatic
mailing process.
e. Document Retention
The Potential Development Association, Real Women in Trucking, and
an individual expressed support for the document retention requirement.
An individual stated that despite the two-year personally identifiable
information (PII)-retention requirement, data security and privacy
safeguards appeared to be absent from the IFR and recommended
incorporating baseline Federal standards and mandating annual third-
party security audits of PII systems with breach reporting to FMCSA.
Another individual recommended requiring SDLAs to document SAVE checks
and record language-proficiency assessments.
AAMVA urged FMCSA to clarify the mechanisms and protocols for data
collection, retention, and sharing, specifically: data elements that
will be shared between Federal agencies and States; security and
privacy protections that will govern the sharing of immigration status
information; whether States are required to report information about
non-domiciled CDL holders to Federal agencies and, if so, what
information must be reported and how frequently; and the mechanism by
which data will be reported from the agencies to the States and vice
versa. AAMVA recommended that FMCSA develop a standardized data sharing
agreement. AAMVA also requested clarification on the two-year retention
requirement, specifically: when would the two-year period begin; which
specific documents must be retained; and would documentation related to
SAVE queries and responses have to be retained for audit purposes and,
if so, how long and in what format. AAMVA recommended that FMCSA
clearly state that CDL Program Implementation grant funding may be used
for maintenance of records. The joint AG comment called the IFR's
document retention requirement ``legally unsupported and unwarranted.''
FMCSA Response
The document retention requirement is necessary to address the
problems in the APRs with determining whether non-domiciled CLPs and
CDLs were issued properly. States are not required to issue non-
domiciled CLPs or CDLs, but those that choose to do so must ensure that
nonimmigrant individuals seeking these credentials are in a proper
lawful status that shows they have been adequately vetted. This will
ensure a heightened level of safety for non-domiciled CMV drivers on
our roadways. The increased burden on the States to query SAVE and to
retain records is necessary to ensure that greater care is taken by
States in properly issuing these credentials and that there is greater
accountability and oversight through the recordkeeping requirements.
Moreover, this increased burden may be offset by the fewer numbers of
credentials that would be issued under the more restrictive eligibility
requirements.
f. Mandatory Downgrade
The Potential Development Association expressed support for the
mandatory downgrade provision. In contrast, an individual wrote that
the downgrade provision, as is, violates due process under the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments. The individual requested FMCSA incorporate
revisions to require that non-domiciled CDL holders be personally
notified of their change in status and an opportunity to be heard prior
to being downgraded. Relatedly, an individual recommended that FMCSA
clarify how notification that the holder no longer meets eligibility
requirements will be transmitted. The individual also requested that
the driver be given notice and the opportunity to appeal before the
downgrade becomes final. The Oregon Department of Transportation
expressed concern that by invoking an immigration exception via a
mandatory downgrade requirement, FMCSA effectively deputizes States to
carry out Federal immigration enforcement in circumvention of the
agency's statutory mandate and constitutional authority. The Oregon
Department of Transportation stated that this undermines rulemaking
transparency and accountability as well as the economic stability of
lawful non-domiciled CDL holders. An individual recommended that FMCSA
authorize driver-initiated updates accompanied by a SAVE re-query and
document review, enabling SDLAs to amend the license before its
expiration rather than downgrading and forcing the individual to
restart the application process.
AAMVA requested clarification on and asked specific questions on
the mechanisms, format, and timeline for the notification that a
credential holder no longer has lawful immigration status in a
specified category. In addition, AAMVA requested FMCSA apply consistent
terminology regarding expected actions and AAMVA requested
[[Page 7077]]
that FMCSA clarify that States are not required to conduct ongoing
independent monitoring of immigration status for existing non-domiciled
CDL holders. AAMVA also requested clarification on whether FMCSA
expects to leverage the APR process to inform individual State
corrective action plans associated with all already-issued licenses and
whether State-initiated corrective action plans will be denied if they
do not include correction of program errors based on the new criteria.
AAMVA also requested clarification on whether States would be required
to identify and take action proactively against a driver who holds a
non-domiciled CDL that was properly issued under the previous
regulations but would not qualify under the new standards, noting this
would be a substantial undertaking. AAMVA also requested clarification
on whether an administrative transaction would trigger the application
of the new eligibility requirements even if no change in the driver's
immigration status has occurred. AAMVA also requested clarification on
the timeline for downgrade actions, and how to treat a credential
holder that provides updated documentation showing continued
eligibility before the downgrade is completed.
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles requested FMCSA
specify how SDLAs will be notified of changes in lawful immigration
status to initiate the downgrade process and recommended implementing
automation to achieve this. ATA stated that the IFR paired with audits
of SDLA practices for non-domiciled and standard CDLs helps preserve
the integrity of the CDL credential. However, ATA requested that FMCSA
establish a mechanism to inform motor carriers promptly when a non-
domiciled driver's legitimately issued CDL has been downgraded and to
provide advance notice to drivers to allow time to prepare for staffing
changes. ATA also suggested that FMCSA revisit the minimum information
required on a driver's motor vehicle record to indicate whether the CDL
is a non-domiciled credential.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with comments arguing that the mandatory downgrade
provision violates the due process principles in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Under the final rule, if a
State receives information from FMCSA, DHS, the U.S. Department of
State, or other Federal agency with jurisdiction that a non-domiciled
CLP or CDL holder licensed in that State no longer holds lawful
nonimmigrant status in a category established in this rule, or if the
non-domiciled CLP or CDL holder violates any terms of their immigration
status, the SDLA will be required to initiate established State
procedures for downgrading the non-domiciled CLP or CDL. The final rule
gives SDLAs a 30-day timeline for completing the downgrade to allow
States sufficient time to comply with State-based procedural due
process requirements. States should already have such due process
procedures in place since FMCSA similarly requires States to initiate
CDL downgrade proceedings for drivers who are prohibited from operating
a commercial motor vehicle due to drug and alcohol program violations
or due to a lapse in medical certification (49 CFR 383.73(o) and (q)).
Further, drivers are able to avail themselves of the due process
proceedings associated with the underlying action taken by DHS, the
U.S. Department of State, or other Federal agency with jurisdiction,
that resulted in a change in immigration status.
FMCSA also disagrees with arguments stating that the final rule
effectively deputizes States to carry out Federal immigration
enforcement. This argument is without merit. The final rule requires
States to comply with the issuance standards for non-domiciled CLPs and
CLPs, not carry out immigration enforcement. While an individual's
immigration status determines, among other things, their eligibility
for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, the reverse is not true. An
individual's ineligibility for a non-domiciled CDL does not impact
their immigration status or work authorization. Nothing in this final
rule requires States to engage in border control activities, the
removal of individuals unlawfully present in the United States, or the
adjudication of an individual's immigration status.
Finally, FMCSA clarifies that the final rule does not require SDLAs
to identify and take action proactively against a driver who holds a
non-domiciled CDL that was properly issued under the previous
regulations but would not qualify under the new standards. The final
rule requires SDLAs to apply the new standards at the time the next
licensing transaction occurs after the effective date of the final
rule.
f. General Implementation Comments
Oklahoma Department of Public Safety and six individuals stated
that there were issues with State compliance with existing regulations
for issuing non-domiciled CDLs. They stated that some States had issued
CDLs with expiration dates that exceeded the expiration dates of EADs,
failed to label non-domiciled CDLs properly, or issued CDLs to
individuals who did not meet eligibility requirements. The Oklahoma
Department of Public Safety stated that Oklahoma Highway Patrol had
encountered many illegal aliens operating CMVs with facially valid CDL
or CLPs issued under the authority of the current rules and provided
examples of recent arrests. The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety
also stated that some States were failing to adhere to the requirement
that ```Non-domiciled' must be conspicuously and unmistakably
displayed'' on the CDL/CLP and provided examples of CDLs issued by New
York and California that lacked this label. The Asian Law Caucus stated
that the IFR's discussion of State implementation issues is misleading.
The Asian Law Caucus stated that the IFR states that FMCSA's APR has
demonstrated that approximately one in four non-domiciled CDLs
California issued were not compliant with the requirements in 49 CFR
parts 383 and 384. Yet, FMCSA's September 26, 2025 letter to California
relied heavily on 25 examples where the expiration dates of a CDL did
not match the expiration date of the driver's lawful presence document,
according to the commenter. At the time of the letter, the Asian Law
Caucus said that there was no requirement in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384
that these dates match, and FMCSA's letter ``tellingly'' cites no
authority for this position.
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance suggested that FMCSA should
address State compliance issues through existing enforcement mechanisms
rather than by restricting CDL eligibility based on immigration status.
The Citizens Rulemaking Alliance stated that FMCSA could deploy the CDL
compliance regime--up to and including decertification findings and
withholding of Federal-aid highway funds--coupled with immediate
corrective action plans and targeted enforcement guidance, without
immediately revising national eligibility criteria via an IFR. An
individual stated that if FMCSA had concerns about eligibility, the
agency should have coordinated with SDLAs before allowing them to issue
CDLs, rather than punishing drivers who had invested thousands of
dollars in training and testing.
An individual stated that the SDLAs are not thoroughly reviewing
application materials from CDL applicants and recommended that all
State agencies have access to every
[[Page 7078]]
applicant's immigration status in order to prevent fraud. An individual
discussed that SDLAs and FMCSA have previously been unresponsive to
requests for information from drivers and unhelpful in the CDL renewal
process, yet when the IFR was published, they took action immediately
to cancel CDLs.
AAMVA submitted detailed comments requesting clarification on
numerous implementation issues, including: downgrade requirements and
timing for non-domiciled CDLs; audit and compliance requirements for
previously issued credentials; Federal agency coordination and
notification procedures; SAVE system usage and I-94 documentation
requirements; testing versus issuance pause procedures; implementation
timeline and technical assistance needs; and data sharing and tracking
mechanisms. Three individuals expressed concern about inconsistent
implementation across States, with some States potentially interpreting
``domicile'' differently, leading to confusion and potential
discrimination. An individual requested that FMCSA provide clear
Federal guidance to States to prevent confusion or discrimination
against compliant drivers. AAMVA and an individual stated that the rule
created confusion regarding how States should handle out-of-State
transfers, renewals, and other transactions for non-domiciled CDL
holders. AAMVA also requested that FMCSA clarify the definition of
``issuing'' and related transactions to avoid overly broad
interpretations that could create excessive burdens for simple
administrative corrections.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees that under the pre-IFR regulations, SDLAs were not
required to ensure the expiration date of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL
did not exceed the driver's lawful presence. The regulatory universe of
non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs is premised on the basic notion that a non-
domiciled driver's commercial motor vehicle driving privileges cannot
extend beyond that driver's lawful presence in the United States.
Moreover, FMCSA's IFR and this final rule amend 49 CFR parts 383 and
384 to underscore existing substantive rules governing the period of
validity for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs, not to create new rules on
non-domiciled CLP and CDL periods of validity that did not exist prior
to FMCSA's publication of the IFR.
Section 31308 of title 49 of the U.S. Code is the statutory basis
for the part 383 minimum standards for CDL expiration dates. It governs
State issuance of CLPs and CDLs and permits FMCSA to issue regulations
that compel all CDLs and CLPs to contain ``the dates between which the
license or learner's permit is valid.'' Pursuant to this statutory
authority, FMCSA issued regulations requiring that CLPs and CDLs issued
by the States ``must contain . . . the date of issuance and the date of
expiration of the license.'' Under 49 CFR 383.73(a)(3) and
383.73(b)(9), FMCSA mandates that CLPs be valid for no more than one
year from the date of issuance, while CDLs may not be valid for more
than eight years from the date of issuance. However, these rules merely
provide a regulatory ceiling for CLP and CDL expiration generally.
States must follow additional procedures prior to issuing non-domiciled
CLPs and CDLs. These additional rules further restrict the period of
validity for such credentials.
The pre-IFR regulations obligated the States to require applicants
to present an unexpired employment authorization document issued by
USCIS or an unexpired foreign passport accompanied by an approved I-94
form documenting the applicant's most recent admittance into the United
States prior to issuing a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. Regulations must be
read in harmony to avoid redundancy and surplusage. The requirements
regarding verification of lawful presence in sections 383.73(f)(3) and
383.71(f)(2)(i) would have been rendered meaningless if a SDLA may
issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL that expires after the expiration of
the driver's lawful presence document. In other words, the mandate to
present an unexpired EAD or foreign passport would be irrelevant and
inconsequential. Similarly, there would be no reason to verify lawful
presence as Sec. 383.73(f)(3) required. Further, permitting States to
issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals in a manner that
permits them to continue operating CMVs without being lawfully present
in the United States is illogical, unreasonable, and contrary to the
fundamental purpose of FMCSA's regulations establishing legal presence
requirements for all CLP and CDL applicants: to ensure CLP and CDL
drivers, including non-domiciled drivers, operate commercial motor
vehicles while lawfully present in the United States.
FMCSA agrees that there have been numerous instances of States
issuing non-domiciled CDLs with expiration dates that exceeded the
expiration dates of the holders' EADs, failing to label non-domiciled
CDLs properly, and issuing CDLs to individuals who did not meet
eligibility requirements. FMCSA cited these concerns in the IFR and
has, since publication of the IFR, identified even greater levels of
systematic noncompliance. Given the statutory requirement to vet driver
history, FMCSA does not believe alternative enforcement mechanisms
would be appropriate for this program, as the necessary level of effort
and oversight would be unduly burdensome for both FMCSA and the States.
In response to comments about States failing to follow the FMCSRs
and not thoroughly reviewing application materials from CDL applicants,
FMCSA agrees that this was a major impetus for issuing the IFR and this
final rule. FMCSA has demonstrable evidence that States have been
erroneously issuing non-domiciled CDLs to individuals who are not
eligible to hold them, such as Canadian and Mexican drivers, as well as
issuing standard CDLs to drivers who should have been issued non-
domiciled CDLs under the prior regulations. This provides strong
justification for FMCSA to implement a clearer, stricter system with
increased documentation requirements, so SDLAs can improve compliance
levels and FMCSA investigators can more easily verify such compliance.
FMCSA will continue to coordinate with AAMVA and the States
following this final rule to address other concerns regarding
implementation. The agency may also publish additional guidance as
necessary.
6. Economic Analysis
a. Methodology and Adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
Accion Opportunity Fund suggested that an impact assessment should
be disaggregated by visa category, fleet size, region, and industry
sector and that FMCSA should publish semi-annual metrics on CDL
issuance, renewals, and small-fleet business outcomes for at least five
years post-implementation. An individual also requested guidance on
implementation and support for affected drivers and carriers, along
with continued monitoring following changes to assess their
effectiveness.
Three individuals expressed concern that the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) failed to analyze rate increases, cost of replacement
training, impacts to schools and municipal systems, tax revenue losses
potentially totaling $1 billion, and inflationary effects. An
individual commented that the economic analysis relies on a per-hour
personnel rate derived from an undisclosed composite of wages. Multiple
individuals urged FMCSA to evaluate the rule's economic
[[Page 7079]]
and workforce impact, or more specifically to perform a full cost-
benefit analysis in accordance with E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' An individual asserted that FMCSA did not comply with
E.O. 12866, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), or OMB
Circular A-4.
Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition and a joint submission by Public
Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments said that FMCSA failed to
provide data demonstrating that the selected category of non-citizens
is more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. An individual stated
that without a baseline safety analysis comparing crash rates by
domicile status, neither stakeholders nor FMCSA can gauge how many
crashes the rulemaking might prevent. The individual requested that
visa-based restrictions be tied to a data-driven study demonstrating
safety improvements for visa holders relative to excluded categories.
Three individuals expressed concern that replacing the qualified
workforce with inexperienced drivers puts public safety at risk. Real
Women in Trucking and an individual stated that FMCSA's break-even
analysis demonstrates that preventing even 0.085 crashes annually
generates net benefits that justify the costs of the IFR.
FMCSA Response
As stated in the RIA below, the agency has met its requirements
under E.O. 12866, UMRA, RFA, and OMB Circular A-4. FMCSA developed an
RIA in accordance with E.O. 12866, has provided additional detail on
the impact to motor carriers and drivers that could result from this
rule, provided more information regarding the CDL composite wage rate,
and more detail surrounding underlying assumptions in the analysis.
Lastly, FMCSA disagrees that this rule would result in less qualified
or inexperienced drivers taking to the road. As discussed in the
regulatory analysis section below, there are experienced drivers that
have been sidelined or working at a reduced capacity during the ongoing
freight recession who are ready and willing to come back into the
market or increase their workload (e.g., decrease deadhead miles or
increase hours within the HOS regulations).
b. Impacts to States and SDLAs
The Maine Immigrants' Rights Coalition, the joint AG comment, The
National Education Association, and several individuals said that the
IFR creates administrative burdens and delays for States or SDLAs. Two
individuals remarked that States have long accepted EADs as lawful
proof of work authorization for issuing CDLs, and that new
administrative processes and training will need to be implemented at
new costs for compliance with the IFR. The individuals added that the
changes in administration of non-domiciled CDLs require States to
rewrite procedures on short notice, causing disruption and
disorganization. Relatedly, AAMVA and AFSCME stated that the burden
estimates for implementation cost failed to account for costs
associated with updating legacy systems, procurement, training, legal
review, opportunity costs, and additional verification through SAVE. An
individual stated that the increased administrative burden may strain
State resources and lead to delays in processing applications. Some
individuals expressed concern that the IFR would cost SDLAs $3.2
million in taxpayer funds to implement in first year costs alone. Some
individuals said that this money could be spent on existing and new
data-driven initiatives aimed at improving highway safety.
Two individuals described funding risks for States due to non-
compliance at the State level, including a reduction in State revenue
from licensing fees, fuel taxes, and registration income. One
individual stated that a CDL driver contributes on average $8,000 to
$12,000 per year in Federal and State taxes, and excluding even 20,000
drivers would result in a $160 to million annual tax loss. Two other
individuals raised the issue of increased cost of social services and
assistance, which on average total $1,500 to $2,000 per month for a
family that loses income and translates to hundreds of millions of
dollars for the tens of thousands of families impacted by the IFR.
Public Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments stated that
the IFR will impact core local government services supported by CDL
holders, including: public transit and school bus services; highway and
road maintenance and repair; response to inclement weather; utilities
services; and disaster response, mitigation, and recovery. Public
Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments cited a 2022 survey by
the American Public Transportation Association that found that 96
percent of transit agencies faced workforce shortages, with 84 percent
of agencies reporting impacts on service, adding that the IFR will
exacerbate existing shortages and reliability issues. Public Rights
Project on behalf of Local Governments remarked that local governments
operate on fixed budgets and therefore are limited in their ability to
address the effects of the IFR through increased expenditures. Public
Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments reasoned that compliance
with the IFR may require governments to redirect funding from other
critical services.
The Hawaii Department of Transportation expressed concern that the
IFR negatively impacts sectors of Hawaii's CDL market that service
students and disabled veterans. Relatedly, King County Metro stated the
IFR will negatively impact transit options available to the public at a
time when transit agencies nationwide have been struggling to rebuild
their workforces. King County Metro discussed that impacts to public
transit staffing presents complementary issues pertaining to safety,
budget, and reliability and costs of service. The commenter wrote that
up to 100 current King County Metro employees work in job
classifications that sometimes require a CDL (50 percent of those being
bus drivers) and will be ineligible to renew their licenses under the
rule. King County Metro expressed concern that the $60,000 investment
made by the county to train four replacement bus operators at $15,000
per driver will be permanently lost now that those individuals are
ineligible to take the CDL exam. In addition, King County Metro
discussed investments of $75,000 for training for drivers with recently
revoked licenses and $675,000 for current CDL holders who will be
unable to renew.
AFT, National Education Association, USW, and two individuals
stated that the IFR will negatively impact public schools and students
by exacerbating driver shortages. The National Education Association
stated that approximately 50 percent of U.S. schoolchildren, or 23.5
million students, rely on school bus services, but remarked that school
districts struggle to recruit drivers given annual average pay as low
as $39,000 in some regions. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority commented that a loss of operators risks bus operators not
being able to run all routes or provide the needed bus frequency, which
results in both a decrease in service that customers rely on and an
increase in uncertainty.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA agrees with commenters that the rulemaking will result in
some program adjustment costs to States, which could include changing
the credential that is issued to ensure that ``non-domiciled'' is
conspicuously and unmistakably displayed on the face of the CLP or CDL,
and ensuring that SDLA employees are properly issuing
[[Page 7080]]
non-domiciled CDLs and retaining appropriate records. To the extent
that States are already in compliance with the SAVE query requirement
(i.e., running a SAVE query or a functional equivalent that is merely
as pass-through to SAVE, to verify lawful permanent residence prior to
issuing a non-domiciled CDL), they would not experience additional
costs to comply with that component of the regulation. These costs, as
well as the ongoing cost for retaining documentation have been
accounted for in the RIA. Moreover, SDLAs are able to apply for and use
CDLPI grants to come into or maintain compliance with the requirements
of this rule. FMCSA also notes that while each transaction involving a
non-domiciled CDL applicant could be longer, there will be fewer
transactions, and FMCSA does not expect this rule to result in delays
in service at the SDLAs in the aggregate. Further, due to the systemic
noncompliance and enforcement action resulting from the nationwide APR,
many States are working to update their license issuance policies and
procedures. FMCSA has been working closely with SDLAs regarding
issuances of non-domiciled CDL holders and will continue to do so as
this final rule is implemented.
FMCSA disagrees with the estimates of tax revenue decrease and
increase in social services costs stated by the commenters. These
individuals will still be able to procure employment in non-CDL
requiring roles, in which case, they will continue to pay State and
Federal taxes and will not be dependent on social services. The
analysis highlights a few different occupations that are likely
alternatives for these individuals. With regards to fuel taxes, FMCSA
does not anticipate a decrease in miles driven, and so does not agree
that there would be a decrease in fuel taxes collected.
FMCSA understands that certain geographic areas or CDL sectors
might employ non-domiciled CDL holders at a higher rate than other
areas or sectors. This fact is not sufficient to negate the necessity
of this rulemaking. A CDL, once obtained, can be used to transport
vehicles of the specific group regardless of the purpose or sector. For
instance, a Class B CDL with a Passenger and School bus endorsement can
be used to drive school buses, passenger vehicles, and straight trucks
requiring a Class B CDL. As previously stated, the lack of available
driving history information for non-domiciled applicants severely
limits the effectiveness of State vetting processes. This inability to
obtain driver history for non-domiciled applicants creates an
unacceptable bifurcated standard in driver vetting. Further, he non-
domiciled CDL credentials were never meant to be permanent documents,
but to have an expiration date based on the individual's employment
authorization. As such, school districts should have been aware that
these drivers might be unable to continue holding a CDL based on their
employment authorization restrictions.
c. Impacts to Drivers
Amalgamated Transit Union, Representative Josh Harder, Inspiritus,
Maine Immigrants' Right Coalition, New York State Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance, a joint submission by Public Rights Project
on behalf of Local Governments, Teamsters California, and some
individuals stated that the IFR threatens the livelihoods of the
approximately 200,000 workers who rely on their CDLs to provide for
themselves and their families. Maine Immigrants' Right Coalition and
three individuals stated that the IFR risks the loss of economic and
financial livelihoods for lawful businesses and drivers. The New York
State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance remarked that
foreign-born drivers account for nearly one in six U.S. truck drivers,
many of whom own small businesses. An individual wrote that FMCSA
should not prevent legal immigrants from filling CDL-dependent roles
and should avoid creating additional burdens. Another individual said
there will not be a negative impact on legitimate labor, and labor
markets will adjust.
Potential Development Association and three individuals said that
the IFR effectively nullified the investments made by thousands of non-
domiciled drivers in training, licensing, and career development while
leaving drivers unemployed and unable to repay debts. Three individuals
described how the rule will create hardships in ability to make
payments on CMVs, potentially leading to defaults totaling three to
five billion dollars on vehicle loans. An individual stated drivers may
pay $3,500 to $8,000 for training programs and invest $80,000 to
$150,000 to purchase or lease a truck. Another individual remarked that
each family-owned truck under financing at monthly payments of $2,000
to $3,000 risks losing both business and housing. Seven individuals
also provided specific cost data related to their mortgages, truck
payments, and other loans. An individual stated that FMCSA's reasoning
that the impacts of the IFR to drivers who lose eligibility are de
minimis is arbitrary and capricious and ignores real-world
consequences. Relatedly, the Asian Law Caucus wrote that the cost of
the IFR to drivers is not de minimis but instead would result in
decreased wage opportunities, foregone investments in CDL training, and
foregone investments in equipment and contracts. The Asian Law Caucus
stated that FMCSA's failure to discuss these reliance interests and to
show adequately how it arrived at the IFR's de minimis impact on
drivers is improper and illegal. Furthermore, the Asian Law Caucus
expressed concern that the IFR also fails to provide guidance to small
and large carriers as well as State agencies in implementing
substantive changes.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges that drivers have invested time and resources
into obtaining a CDL credential as a CDL is indeed a valuable asset.
However, the non-domiciled CDL credentials were never meant to be
permanent documents for foreign-domiciled drivers, but to have an
expiration date based on the individual's employment authorization. To
the extent that individuals took on long-term loans for vehicles or
other investments, they should have been aware that their CDL
credential was not a permanent right, but a privilege with a limited
term and subject to a sudden change in status. The individuals were
responsible for weighing these risks when entering into loans or
contracts. FMCSA steers policy based on safety, and not the sunk costs
that have been incurred by individuals. Further, drivers that are no
longer eligible to hold a CDL at the time of renewal will be able to
operate until the expiration date on their license (up-to five years
from the date of issuance) and will still be able to work in positions
not requiring a CDL following expiration of their CDL. Therefore, FMCSA
does not expect that these drivers would be unemployed with no ability
to earn a living and sustain a family, but would seek alternative
employment either within or outside the transportation sector. As
discussed in analysis section below, within the transportation and
materials moving industry, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data shows
that alternative employment options range from $27 to $35 per hour for
wages and benefits.
d. Impacts to Motor Carriers
Three individuals stated the IFR will harm small and mid-sized
carriers, owner-operators, and logistics-dependent industries. An
individual stated that American trucking professionals disagree with
FMCSA's claim that there will be a limited
[[Page 7081]]
economic impact on the freight market and motor carriers. The
individual discussed findings by industry analysts regarding increasing
costs of turnover observed in 2024, with the estimated cost of losing
just one driver reaching $12,799. An individual stated that the IFR
will disproportionately affect small businesses, including family-owned
and minority-owned businesses, and stimulate a market monopolization by
a few large trucking corporations. Relatedly, another individual
remarked that reducing competition in the CDL labor market lowers wages
and strengthens dominance of large companies. Representative Josh
Harder said that the IFR will destroy American businesses that employ
members of the Sikh and Punjabi communities, as 150,000 Sikh Americans
work in the trucking industry nationwide.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges, but disagrees with, the commenters concern
regarding friction in the motor carrier industry and the magnitude of
the impact of replacing drivers who are no longer eligible to hold a
CDL. The non-domiciled CDL credentials were never meant to be permanent
documents, but to have an expiration date based on the individual's
employment authorization. As such, motor carriers should have been
aware that these drivers might be unable to continue holding a CDL
based on their employment authorization restrictions. Further,
employment turnover and churn are well-documented features of the CMV
industry. The 2025 update to the American Transportation Research
Institute's (ATRI) Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking
reports that the average driver turnover rate, weighted by sector
representation was 48 percent in 2024.\57\ Driver turnover in the
truckload sector ranges from 44.3 percent to 72.1 percent depending on
the size of the carrier. The OOIDA foundation finds that while driver
churn affects large truckload carriers to a greater extent than small
carriers, it is endemic to the entire industry, and something that
carriers have been managing for many years.\58\ The American Public
Transportation Association reports that 59 percent of departures happen
within the first two years of employment.\59\ Given the industry norm
regarding movement of drivers and the constant need for hiring, FMCSA
considers motor carriers to be well equipped to handle any driver
replacement necessitated by this rule. Further, the five-year
attribution will assist in mitigating any impacts to motor carriers.
While this exit from the market might come earlier than anticipated in
some instances, the non-domiciled CDL credentials were always meant to
be temporary with expiration dates based on the individual's employment
authorization. At most, this rule would result in a temporal shift in
impact related to that subset of non-domiciled CDL holders that would
not have looked for alternative employment in the baseline at an
earlier date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ ATRI, Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2025
Update, p. 48, available for download at https://truckingresearch.org/about-atri/atri-research/operational-costs-of-trucking/.
\58\ https://www.ooida.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/The-Churn-A-Brief-Look-at-the-Roots-of-High-Driver-Turnover-in-U.S.-Trucking.pdf.
\59\ https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Transit-Workforce-Shortage-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Impacts to Supply Chain
AFSCME, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Colorado Fiscal Institute,
Representative Josh Harder, Justice at Work PA, National Education
Association, United Steelworkers, and numerous individuals described
the harm of driver shortages to motor carriers, industry, supply chain,
or schools. Accion Opportunity Fund, a joint submission by Public
Rights Project on behalf of Local Governments, and numerous individuals
suggested the IFR will impact supply chains and drive higher prices for
food, medicine, and construction materials, accelerating inflation. An
individual cited a BLS finding that over 72 percent of U.S. freight is
moved by truck. Another individual described how past shocks show how
slowly and unevenly markets adjust, refuting FMCSA's claim that
``markets will adjust.'' An individual stated this will lead to spot
rate increase and increase in consumer costs.
The Colorado Fiscal Institute estimated that Colorado's expanded
access to driver's licenses regardless of immigration status saves $127
million in insurance premiums every year because more people are
insured, adding that licensing non-domiciled drivers could increase
revenue for insurance companies by $360 million annually. The Colorado
Fiscal Institute also stated that transportation and warehousing is a
$25 billion industry across Colorado, with 6.7 percent of that
industry's workforce being made up of immigrant workers who are
responsible for more than $1.6 billion in gross domestic product. An
individual stated that the loss of drivers creates revenue losses and
congestion at ports, impacting supply chains. The individual estimated
the monthly freight revenue losses totaling approximately $1.18 billion
per month if 10 percent of excluded drivers are removed, based on the
following impacts to the supply chain: $337.5 million for dry van
operations; $562.5 million for reefer operations; and $281.25 million
for reefer spoilage, assuming 50 percent delayed reefer loads.
Maine Equal Justice wrote that Maine residents rely on truck
transport for more than 80 percent of their material goods, meaning CDL
drivers are responsible for delivering essential goods like food and
heating oil. Maine Equal Justice discussed that while one out of 16
workers are employed in trucking and logistics jobs and more than 5,300
companies employ drivers and other transportation workers across the
State, as of May 2025 Maine faces an estimated driver shortage of 1,100
workers to meet existing demands. Maine Equal Justice estimated the IFR
will remove up to 200 Maine drivers from the road. Maine Equal Justice
added that Maine also faces a school bus driver shortage of 80 drivers,
and that the State's trucking industry annually pays $163 million in
tolls and taxes. California Bus Association discussed that in 2024 the
U.S. motorcoach industry generated: $158 billion in total economic
impact, supporting 885,000 jobs nationwide across transportation,
tourism, and hospitality sectors; $11.9 billion in impact in California
alone; and $39.8 billion in direct spending from group travel,
supporting more than 500,000 jobs in food service, lodging, and retail.
California Bus Association added that removing non-domiciled CDL
holders could lead to a ripple effect on tourism, hospitality, and
local economies. California Bus Association stated that the private
motorcoach sector is facing a 21.4 percent shortfall in driver
availability, with public transit agencies reporting 71 percent have
cut or delayed service because of operator shortages.
Relatedly, Amalgamated Transit Union stated the IFR fails to
account for impacts to workers other than drivers such as mechanics,
dispatchers, and road supervisors. Amalgamated Transit Union also
expressed concern that a shortage of CDL holders limits the growth of
the intercity bus industry and could negatively impact student
attendance and extracurricular participation. Teamsters California
asserted that FMCSA failed to address other significant costs to
consumers, businesses, and unions. Teamsters California discussed that
labor unions will be required to represent these
[[Page 7082]]
drivers when they lose their licenses and jobs, resulting in
arbitrations or negotiations costing thousands of dollars, which is not
addressed in the IFR RIA. International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO stated that the IFR will negatively impact the
reliability of the electrical grid by reducing the number of CDL
holders qualified to construct, maintain, and repair national
infrastructure. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO reasoned that this limits national emergency preparedness at and
exacerbates the recent supply shortage of skilled electricians. Accion
Opportunity Fund discussed that driver shortages will harm agriculture
and harvest logistics due to short harvest windows for crops and ports
and drayage. Accion Opportunity Fund stated this will lead to capacity
loss, longer dwell times, higher demurrage, and increases in prices.
Accion Opportunity Fund estimated $250 million in small business
working capital tied to current non-domiciled truckers will be in
jeopardy.
An individual questioned why the IFR considered the $15.7 million
``cost of a fatal crash,'' but not the cost of tripling the driver
shortage. Another individual discussed that the driver shortage reached
approximately 78,800 positions in 2022, with projections reaching up to
160,000 by 2028 even as 237,600 job openings for heavy and tractor-
trailer truck drivers are estimated to be available annually between
2024 and 2034. Kilban Logistics LLC and many individuals stated that
the notion that there was a shortage of truck drivers in the United
States was a myth, perpetuated by large trucking companies and industry
associations to justify hiring foreign drivers at lower wages. DD 214
Transport LLC and six individuals expressed that there are plenty of
qualified American drivers available but that they are unwilling to
accept poor working conditions and inadequate compensation. OOIDA
stated that the trucking industry is at overcapacity and that the
industry has been exploiting cheap labor on the basis of false ``driver
shortage'' claims, instead highlighting the driver turnover that
plagues the industry, which could be mitigated by the IFR by ensuring
that only well-trained, qualified individuals can earn a commercial
license.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the rule would
exacerbate the purported driver shortage and subsequent disruptions to
supply chains. Following the COVID-19 pandemic boom, the industry found
itself with ``too many trucks chasing too few loads, forcing rates down
and squeezing profit margins across the country.'' \60\ Carriers have
been parking trucks to lower operating costs, operating at low profit
margins, and exiting the industry.61 62 The commenters'
suggestion that this rule will result in negative impacts to the supply
chain does not comport with the reality of the freight recession that
motor carriers have been shouldering for the past three years. There
are drivers who are underutilized and facing increasing dead-head miles
at the expense of their bottom line.\63\ Multiple outlets have reported
how the current conditions in the freight market have resulted in
layoffs, market exits, and bankruptcies.64 65 Many
commenters referencing the driver shortage echoed previously published
data from ATA. However, ATA has pivoted away from the ``driver
shortage'' narrative, reflecting current freight market realities. This
shift is underscored by the issue's recent departure from the top ten
list in the ATRI Critical Issues in the Trucking Industry report--for
the first time in the 21-year history of the report.66 67
Capacity in the freight market has contracted over the past three years
as the industry began a downturn in April 2022; however, those drivers
that have reduced their mileage or exited the market remain eligible to
hold a CDL creating a layer of latent capacity. FMCSA does not agree
that this rule will result in a shortage of drivers. Instead, based on
the numerous reports of underutilization and lay-offs cited previously,
FMCSA anticipates that there are available, experienced drivers who
will be willing to increase their workload or able to step back into
the market after being sidelined throughout the freight recession. The
large quantitative impacts stemming from supply chain disruptions
discussed by commenters assume that the industry will be unable to meet
existing demands in the freight market. FMCSA disagrees with these
assertions based on the evidence cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ https://otrsolutions.com/what-truckers-need-to-know-about-the-freight-recession/.
\61\ ATRI Operational Cost of Trucking, p. 54, available for
download at https://truckingresearch.org/about-atri/atri-research/operational-costs-of-trucking/.
\62\ FMCSA 2024 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.
Table 1-8. Available at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor-vehicle-facts.
\63\ ATRI, Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2025
Update, available for download at https://truckingresearch.org/about-atri/atri-research/operational-costs-of-trucking/.
\64\ ATRI, Critical Issues in Trucking-2025. Available at:
https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/ATRI-Top-Industry-Issues-2025.pdf.
\65\ Commercial Carrier Journal, Carrier failures have
``declined mostly steadily, but they are still higher than seen
before the pandemic'' (Apr. 26, 2024). Available at: https://
www.ccjdigital.com/business/article/15669400/carrier-failures-
declining-still-
high#:~:text=Looking%20at%20Federal%20Motor%20Carrier,did%20immediate
ly%20before%20the%20pandemic.%E2%80%9D.
\66\ https://www.overdriveonline.com/channel-19/article/15771074/how-dots-duffy-destroyed-the-driver-shortage-narrative.
\67\ https://truckingresearch.org/2025/10/critical-issues-in-the-trucking-industry-2025/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Fiscal Institute's comments related to insurance
premiums are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rule does not
impact the ability of drivers to obtain insurance.
f. Failure To Consider Reliance Interests
Maine Equal Justice, the joint AG comment, and three individuals
stated that FMCSA failed to consider the reliance interests of CDL
holders, their employers, and training providers who had invested time
and resources based on the previous policy. The joint AG comment stated
that FMCSA's failure to consider these serious reliance interests in
promulgating an IFR that effectively strips these CDL holders of their
licenses as soon as they come up for renewal, or when States are
notified of a purported change in immigration status, renders the IFR
arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. In addition, the joint submission
stated that the IFR cites no data that supports its assertions that
individuals will be able to find similar employment or that their costs
would be merely de minimis. Further, the joint submission said that
FMCSA's claim that transition costs resulting from the loss of a CDL
will be merely ``de minimis'' is contradicted by FMCSA's statement that
``[a] non-domiciled CDL is a high-value economic credential.''
Other commenters focused on the magnitude of the previously
invested time and resources. Potential Development Association and
three individuals said that the IFR effectively nullified the
investments made by thousands of non-domiciled drivers in training,
licensing, and career development while leaving drivers unemployed and
unable to repay debts. Three individuals described how the rule will
create hardships in ability to make payments on CMVs, potentially
leading to defaults totaling three to five billion dollars on vehicle
loans. An individual stated drivers may pay $3,500 to $8,000 for
training programs and invest $80,000 to $150,000 to purchase or lease a
truck. Another individual remarked that each family-
[[Page 7083]]
owned truck under financing at monthly payments of $2,000 to $3,000
risks losing both business and housing. Justice at Work and some
individuals discussed specific payments ranging from $3,500 to nearly
$15,000 spent to obtain CDLs. Seven individuals also provided specific
cost data related to their mortgages, truck payments, and other loans.
An individual stated that FMCSA's reasoning that the impacts of the IFR
to drivers who lose eligibility are de minimis is arbitrary and
capricious and ignores real-world consequences. Relatedly, the Asian
Law Caucus wrote that the cost of the IFR to drivers is not de minimis
but instead would result in decreased wage opportunities, foregone
investments in CDL training, and foregone investments in equipment and
contracts. The Asian Law Caucus stated that FMCSA's failure to discuss
these reliance interests and to show adequately how it arrived at the
IFR's de minimis impact on drivers is improper and illegal.
Citing DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct.
1891 (2020), MALDEF and six individuals said that agencies must
consider the reliance interests of individuals who structured their
lives and investments based on existing legal frameworks. Citing Encino
Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016), two individuals said
the IFR ignores employers' reliance interests developed under prior
rules. Two individuals added that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious
because it disregards that commercial drivers and trainees have already
invested substantial resources in CDL training, truck purchases, and
financing. Commenting that courts have ruled that agencies must
consider reliance interests and provide fair transition periods to
satisfy the APA, an individual concluded that the IFR ignores reliance
interests because it lacks grandfathering provisions. An individual
stated that the IFR violates the APA because it ``failed to provide a
transition period.'' Similarly, the Potential Development Association
asserted that the IFR does not provide adequate transitional relief or
appeal channels for EAD holders who have already legitimately obtained
their CDLs or have invested significant time and resources in training.
Relatedly, MALDEF challenged the IFR's assertion that most drivers who
lose their CDL as a result of the IFR will find work in other sectors
like construction, saying the IFR ``provides no explanation, let alone
evidence, why these drivers will successfully transition to other
sectors.''
FMCSA Response
Several commenters have argued that FMCSA failed to consider the
reliance interests of individuals who structured their lives and
investments based on existing legal frameworks as well as the reliance
interests of employers that invested time and resources based on the
previous rule. FMCSA recognizes the serious economic reliance interests
at stake. The agency understands that many foreign-domiciled drivers
have invested time in training and capital in equipment based on the
prior regulatory framework. We have not taken the decision to alter
eligibility criteria lightly. However, the agency must weigh these
private reliance interests against the public's reliance on a safe and
securely vetted commercial driver workforce and its statutory
obligation to ensure driver fitness. While the economic disruption to
these drivers is regrettable, it is necessary to ensure that the CDL
credential retains its integrity as a certification of safety fitness
and an identified safety gap is remedied.
Moreover, the temporary nature of the legal presence documents that
formed the basis of non-domiciled CLP and CDL eligibility under FMCSA's
pre-IFR regulations belie the commenters' argument. As explained in the
IFR, FMCSA interprets the agency's pre-IFR regulations to require SDLAs
to ensure that the expiration date of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs do
not exceed the expiration date of the driver's lawful presence known at
the time of issuance. FMCSA's regulations in this regard are consistent
with DHS's REAL ID regulations, which also prohibit States from issuing
limited term driver's licenses and identification cards that exceed the
applicant's legal presence (6 CFR 37.21). Further, some States have
codified a similar requirement in their laws (see e.g., Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 13, Sec. 26.02(c)). It is well established that the lawful
presence documents required for an applicant to be eligible for a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL under FMCSA's pre-IFR regulations (i.e., an
unexpired EAD or unexpired foreign passport accompanied by an approved
I-94 form documenting the applicant's most recent admittance into the
United States) are not permanent credentials. Rather, these lawful
presence documents are based on an applicant's temporary legal status,
which is subject to adjudication by DHS. Further, under DHS
regulations, EADs are subject to expiration, termination, or revocation
for a number of reasons (see e.g., 8 CFR 274a.14 (Termination of
employment authorization)). Consequently, non-domiciled CLP and CDL
drivers, as well as their employers, have long borne, and voluntarily
accepted, the risk that a driver who previously held a non-domiciled
CLP or CDL would become ineligible for the permit or license upon the
expiration or termination of the lawful presence documents required
under the pre-IFR regulations. To the extent that individuals took on
long-term loans for vehicles or other investments, they should have
been aware that their CDL credential was not a permanent right, but a
privilege with a limited term and subject to a sudden change in status.
The individuals were responsible for weighing these risks when entering
into loans or contracts. FMCSA steers policy based on safety, and not
the sunk costs that have been incurred by individuals. Further, drivers
that are no longer eligible to hold a CDL at the time of renewal will
be able to operate until the expiration date on their license (up-to
five years from the date of issuance) and will still be able to work in
positions not requiring a CDL after their credential expires.
Therefore, FMCSA does not expect that these drivers would be unemployed
with no ability to earn a living and sustain a family, but would seek
alternative employment either within or outside the transportation
sector. As discussed in analysis section below, within the
transportation and materials moving industry, BLS data shows that
alternative employment options range from $27 to $35 per hour for wages
and benefits.
Further, as FMCSA's 2025 APRs demonstrated, many non-domiciled CDL
holders have been improperly issued licenses under the existing
regulations. These individuals have no reliance interests because they
were not eligible from the outset. To the extent that an individual who
was otherwise previously eligible is prevented from upgrading or
renewing a CDL because of errors made by the SDLA, this is an issue
between the individual and the licensing State. Moreover, for all
individuals--whether domiciled or not--the ability to hold a CDL is a
privilege and not a right. This is particularly true for non-domiciled
CDL holders, who should be on notice that their licenses are subject to
additional terms and conditions and will not necessarily be renewed
upon expiration. Neither the IFR nor this final rule are stripping non-
domiciled CDL holders' licenses retroactively; rather these individuals
will be ineligible for renewal or upgrade, which was always a
possibility even absent the rule.
Most individuals who are ineligible for renewal will, contrary to
one commenter's assertion, have a transition
[[Page 7084]]
period from when this rule becomes effective until the date of the
CDL's expiration. This transition period could be up to five years and
will be well known to the motor carrier or individual in advance. The
individuals whose CDLs must be cancelled prior to the expiration date
shown on the credential are not ineligible due to this rule, but rather
due to audits that showed that they never should have been issued a
non-domiciled CDL in the first place.
As far as training providers are concerned, FMCSA stresses that the
training standards set forth in the regulations (49 CFR 380 subpart F)
are the exact same regardless of whether the trainee is US domiciled or
not. Training providers that developed a business model focused on EAD
holders can provide the same excellent training to CLP and CDL
applicants that are eligible to obtain a CDL under this rule.
7. Other Comments on Procedural Matters
a. State Consultation
The Asian Law Caucus, The Maine Secretary of State, the joint AG
comment, and Teamsters California expressed concern that FMCSA did not,
as 49 U.S.C. 31308 requires, consult with the States before amending
the regulations that govern eligibility for and issuance of CDLs. The
joint AG comment wrote that bypassing consultation with the States
disregards their ``knowledge and experience in having administered CDL
programs for decades.'' The Maine Secretary of State, the joint AG
comment, and Teamsters California asserted that FMCSA's inability to
justify its lack of consultation with the States is one reason the D.C.
Circuit stayed the IFR. The Asian Law Caucus and the joint AG comment
said FMCSA failed to consult with the States despite acknowledging in
the IFR that it was required to do so under the CMVSA. Both commenters
objected to FMCSA's assertion that consultation was ``not
practicable,'' citing the CMVSA's lack of an exception to the
requirement, with the Asian Law Caucus adding that failure to consult
with the States is at odds with FMCSA having consulted with other
government agencies such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) before
issuing the IFR, and the joint AG comment referencing past rules in
which FMCSA ``affirmed that rulemaking pursuant to Sec. 31305 requires
consultation with the States.''
FMCSA Response
In the IFR, FMCSA found good cause to forego consultation with the
States. Such consultation is not required under 49 U.S.C. 31305(a),
which the agency cited as statutory authority, and was not practicable
under section 6(b) of E.O. 13132. However, in its order staying the
IFR, the D.C. Circuit cited a separate State consultation requirement
in 49 U.S.C. 31308 as, in part, reason for granting the stay. During
the comment period for the IFR, FMCSA sent consultation letters to each
of the States and received comments from eight State agencies and
SDLAs, AAMVA, and 19 State attorneys general. Thus, to the extent that
State consultation is required prior to issuance of this final rule,
this requirement has now been satisfied.
In addition to this direct consultation, FMCSA held a call with
SDLAs on October 2, 2025 to discuss the now stayed IFR and answer
questions that were submitted in the days following its issuance. There
was a CDL Roundtable Virtual Meeting on November 4, 2025, where FMCSA
discussed the subject with SDLAs. FMCSA Field Offices participate in
routine meetings with SDLAs to discuss various topics as well as
conduct APRs where an in-depth review of CDL issuance is conducted by
FMCSA and results discussed with the SDLA.
b. Other Consultation
An individual urged FMCSA to disclose stakeholder meetings and
correspondence in compliance with E.O. 12866. Another individual
asserted that FMCSA failed to comply with interagency coordination
requirements in E.O. 12866; the individual noted that the IFR
introduces a definition of lawful presence that directly affects the
responsibilities of DHS and states that FMCSA has provided no evidence
that it sought or obtained DHS concurrence prior to publication. An
individual stated that a coordinated interagency approach with DHS is
needed to ensure federal transportation policy remains aligned with the
law.
Asian Law Caucus stated that the IFR states that FMCSA consulted
with DOL's Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) in restricting
those eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to H-2A, H-2B, and E-2
visa holders, but FMCSA failed to include information from its
consultation with OFLC in the rulemaking docket to allow meaningful
input. Asian Law Caucus requested an additional opportunity to comment
after the OFLC information is provided.
FMCSA Response
Through the IFR and this final rule, FMCSA has been fully
transparent about the coordination that it engaged in during the
rulemaking process. The agency coordinated regularly with Federal
partners and incorporated their expertise into the IFR. FMCSA continued
to work with other agencies between the IFR and this final rule to
provide as much updated information as possible, including the enhanced
vetting procedures from the U.S. Department of State.
c. E.O. 14192
Oregon Department of Transportation stated that FMCSA claims the
rulemaking is exempt from the regulatory cost and repeal requirements
of E.O. 14192 by classifying it as an ``immigration-related function.''
However, Oregon Department of Transportation said that if the rule is
not based on safety data, and FMCSA lacks immigration enforcement
authority, then the agency cannot reasonably claim either a safety or
immigration basis for the rule.
FMCSA Response
As stated above, this final rule is based solely on safety and the
associated authorities that FMCSA operates under. The determination
that the IFR was issued with respect to an immigration-related function
was limited to the scope of E.O. 14192 and the exemption from its
requirements. This determination does not rely on immigration
authority.
d. Regulatory Flexibility Act
An individual asserted that 90 percent of trucking companies in the
U.S. are small businesses, many of which are immigrant-owned or
immigrant-dependent. The individual stated that the burden of the IFR
will fall disproportionately on small operators and stated that FMCSA
has violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because no initial or
final regulatory flexibility analysis was conducted. Accion Opportunity
Fund stated that FMCSA did not publish a comprehensive small entity
analysis under the RFA. Two individuals noted that an RFA analysis was
not completed and requested that FMCSA complete one. An individual
noted that the FMCSA failed to consider alternatives as required under
the RFA.
FMCSA Response
As discussed in the IFR, FMCSA asserted that it was not required to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA.\68\ This final
rule contains an updated discussion of the agency's requirements under
the RFA. Based on the rationale below, FMCSA
[[Page 7085]]
certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required. In addition, as stated in the
regulatory analysis below, the agency has met its requirements under
E.O. 12866, UMRA, and OMB Circular A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 90 FR 46521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Information Collection
The joint AG comment stated that FMCSA's information collection is
not ``necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency'' per the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the agency lacks
statutory authority over immigration, as even FMCSA admits there is no
evidence linking immigration status to CDL driver safety. The joint
submission said requiring SDLAs to retain and produce immigration
documents and SAVE query results duplicates DHS responsibilities and is
unnecessary for the proper performance of FMCSA's functions. In
addition, the joint submission said the IFR does not ``reduce[] to the
extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall
provide information to or for the agency'' per the PRA. Rather, it
places considerable burden on SDLAs, as it contains no limitation on
documents and requires that SDLAs provide documents on a 48-hour
turnaround. The joint submission said FMCSA provides no explanation for
the new requirement, especially given existing regulations that already
mandate APRs and information sharing. An individual asserted that the
small entity impacts and PRA impacts are understated. SBTC stated that:
(1) the proposed information collection is necessary; (2) they do not
contest the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) they have no
suggestions on ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, or
clarity of the collected information; and (4) they can offer no
information on ways the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information.
FMCSA Response
The information collection requirements in the IFR and the final
rule are necessary. FMCSA has extensive authority over the CDL issuance
process and the review of State licensing programs. As discussed above,
the APRs highlighted a lack of available information at the State-level
regarding non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs that were issued and the
documentation that was provided during the application process for
those non-domiciled CLPs and CLDs. This led to difficulties for the
agency during the APR process. It became clear during the APR process
that the prior information collection and retention requirements were
not sufficient to ensure FMCSA has the ability to review non-domiciled
CLP and CDL issuance by SDLAs in a reasonable timeframe. The
requirement for SDLAs to retain copies of the information relied on
during the non-domiciled application process is not only a minor
burden, but it also ensures that FMCSA has access to the necessary
information during the APR process and other audits in the future. The
requirement for producing those copies within 48 hours of a request
from FMCSA ensures that the agency has adequate access to the records.
The information collection is neither duplicative nor unlimited. It
requires copies to be made of the two specific identification documents
used in the application process for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, both of
which must already be inspected by the SDLA, and a copy of the required
SAVE query. Commenters do not provide a citation to a specific,
currently approved information collection containing a duplicative
requirement for retention of these documents.
f. Privacy
The joint AG comment stated that, although FMCSA claims the rule
does not involve collecting PII, it requires SDLAs to retain and share
immigration documents (e.g., passports and I-94s) that contain PII. The
joint submission said FMCSA's failure to comply with the statutory
requirement to assess the privacy impact of the PII collection was
arbitrary and capricious. The joint submission and Asian Law Caucus
said FMCSA provided no opportunity to review the supporting Privacy
Impact Analysis despite stating that it would be available for review
in the docket.
FMCSA Response
The IFR and final rule do not involve any new collection of PII
because the prior regulations already allowed for the use of a passport
and I-94/94A during the application process. The only change made to
the document requirements was removal of the EAD as an approved option.
This revision does not result in a new collection of PII that would
necessitate a PIA. In addition, because the SDLAs are already charged
with protecting the PII that they collect during the licensing process,
they should already have adequate system security features in place to
guard against improper access to or release of PII.
FMCSA inadvertently stated that a PIA was in the docket, however
the rest of the privacy discussion in the IFR made clear why a PIA was
not prepared.
8. Alternatives
a. Alternatives to Employment-Based Nonimmigrant Status
Citizens Rulemaking Alliance, Potential Development Association,
and three individuals, stated that FMCSA failed to consider reasonable
alternatives to the rule that would have been less restrictive while
still addressing safety concerns. An individual suggested that FMCSA
could have strengthened the SAVE verification system rather than
implementing blanket restrictions based on immigration status.
An individual recommended that FMCSA focus on systemic safety
improvements rather than driver removal, suggesting that the agency
prioritize solutions that target unsafe driving and deficient training
across the entire industry.
Numerous individuals suggested a more individualized approach to
assessing driver safety, in contrast to restrictions based on
immigration status, with some suggesting approaches like individualized
renewal processes, appeal processes for drivers, or other testing as
described below. Representative Josh Harder suggested that FMCSA pause
issuance of new CDLs to ensure applicants have valid work
authorization. The City of Manteca and numerous individuals suggested
improved background checks as an alternative to the IFR. The Potential
Development Association recommended an enhanced background
investigation (in addition to SAVE verification) to include Form I-94
or a valid EAD, clean criminal history from the United States and their
country of origin, clean driving record, and notarized reference
letters. Numerous individuals supported a review of CDL holders'
driving records. Many individuals suggested verification of addresses/
residency. Numerous individuals supported retesting existing CDL
applicants or audits to verify compliance in lieu of the IFR. Several
individuals supported recertification or re-verification of legal
status for CDL holders (with some suggesting this could occur on an
annual basis or at license renewal). Three individuals suggested
additional or improved medical testing for CDL holders. Accion
Opportunity Fund requested adding reporting, auditing, and data-sharing
requirements into any revised rule to collect and publish metrics on
CDL issuance, renewals, and SAVE-related errors. Some individuals
suggested that drivers could obtain
[[Page 7086]]
additional certifications for their CDL, instead of prohibiting them
altogether. It also suggested improving communication and training
programs.
Washington Trucking Associations urged FMCSA to strengthen the CDL
program through a holistic, evidence-based approach rather than relying
on narrow employment definitions. Rather than relying on the IFR's
narrow definition of permissible employment categories, Washington
Trucking Associations said FMCSA should base eligibility standards on
research-supported indicators that more accurately reflect a driver's
likelihood of safe performance. Washington Trucking Associations
suggested targeting high-risk behaviors and violations; considering a
one-year non-commercial driving experience requirement for new
entrants; enhancing Entry-Level Driver Training oversight and removing
non-compliant schools; and modernizing data systems to prevent multi-
State fraud and close gaps in carrier safety ratings.
Many individuals suggested improved training, stricter skills
testing, or mandatory training periods for CDLs in lieu of the IFR. An
individual requested that the IFR clarify whether non-domiciled CDL
holders remain eligible for special endorsements (e.g., hazardous
materials or Transportation Worker Identification Credential) or retain
cross-border privileges under the North American Free Trade Agreement
and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. An individual suggested
that the final rule should explicitly require any organization
conducting commercial driver examinations to collect and validate the
same documentation and complete the same SAVE checks as the SDLA. An
individual stated that by placing restrictions on an EAD holder's
ability to drive a commercial vehicle, FMCSA is improperly attempting
to re-classify the scope of Federal work authorization, which the
commenter stated is a function that belongs exclusively to immigration
agencies. An individual recommended support programs for low-income
individuals and education resources to help individuals understand the
requirements.
Multiple individuals suggested that FMCSA should focus on removing
drivers with poor safety records or who obtained their licenses
illegally rather than targeting drivers based on immigration status. An
individual suggested increasing the standards for everyone, reasoning
that a person does not have to be foreign to be a bad driver. Three
individuals expressed willingness to undergo additional testing or
verification to demonstrate their qualifications and commitment to
safety. An individual stated that the IFR addresses safety and security
gaps, but that it is incomplete, and should focus on data-driven
improvements.
Easy CDL Trucking School recommended that instead of targeting the
immigrant population, FMCSA should reinstate the old CDL exam to the
version that was revised in recent years to help with the driver
shortage. An individual wrote that they agree with improving safety and
integrity but suggested that FMCSA include clear provisions protecting
individuals with work authorization.
An individual recommended implementing a dedicated vetting process
for asylees using SAVE verification. An individual recommended
requiring SDLAs to verify EAD validity electronically with SAVE.
Another individual recommending allowing renewals for EAD holders
verified through SAVE. Another individual recommended allowing drivers
with valid EADs and legal work authorization to continue operating, as
long as their documents are verified through SAVE and regularly
updated. Another individual recommended more frequent, targeted
compliance checks focused on high-error rate jurisdictions and
credential processing procedures.
An individual stated that those who attended CDL school, passed
exams and English proficiency tests with success, and are in normal
immigration proceedings with USCIS should have their CDLs issued again
by SDLAs.
Another individual suggested going back to the 50-mile radius limit
within U.S. borders for non-domiciled CDL holders, stating that this
would improve safety, increase wages for drivers, and limit drug and
human trafficking.
An individual stated that having a green card or passport does not
guarantee that a driver will be safe on the road. They said that only
drivers with legal status in the United States who can prove their
knowledge and skills should qualify for a CDL. Another individual
stated that primary residency should be a minimum requirement. The
California Bus Association wrote that drivers should be evaluated based
on competence, performance, and safety compliance and not immigration
status. Three individuals said that CDL holding should be based on
points, not on immigration status.
STR Bros LLC and multiple individuals suggested that instead of a
blanket restriction on non-domiciled CDLs, the agency should implement
more targeted measures to address safety concerns, including enhanced
English language testing, additional safety checks, or focusing
enforcement on drivers with poor safety records. Multiple individuals
wrote that instead of restricting non-domiciled CDLs, FMCSA should
prioritize auditing trucking schools, State Departments of Motor
Vehicles (DMVs), and drivers at weigh stations to ensure proper
qualification and compliance. Multiple individuals suggested that
drivers should be evaluated based on their individual driving records,
safety performance, and compliance history, rather than their
immigration status. Golden Rolls Trucking Inc. and five individuals
proposed that FMCSA concentrate on addressing issues such as hours-of-
service violations, ELD manipulation, and other safety-related
behaviors rather than targeting drivers based on their immigration
status. ETA Trans Inc., Roadking Freightline, and multiple individuals
wrote that enforcing stricter training requirements, implementing more
rigorous testing procedures, and improving the quality of CDL training
programs nationwide would be more effective approaches to addressing
safety concerns. Five individuals also expressed support for stricter
retesting requirements. Relatedly, four individuals stated that FMCSA
should improve CDL training requirements for all drivers if the true
concern is safety. Five individuals wrote that issues with how certain
States issued non-domiciled CDLs could be addressed by improving
verification systems. Prime Transport and multiple individuals
recommended implementing English proficiency tests.
Multiple individuals suggested ending the issuance of non-domiciled
CDLs altogether to address deflating wages and safety concerns. Many
individuals stated that the IFR did not go far enough in restricting
eligibility, and that only U.S. citizens and green card holders should
be able to hold a CDL.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA has already taken the action in many of the areas suggested
as alternative approaches. Some commenters mention taking actions that
are not in the scope of this rulemaking, which the agency does not
believe are appropriate for this final rule to address. FMCSA disagrees
with individuals who stated that FMCSA failed to consider reasonable
alternatives to the rule that would have been less restrictive. As
discussed below in X.A., the agency specifically considered a range of
options and determined that there are no alternatives that would be
reasonable
[[Page 7087]]
for the States to implement and administer.
FMCSA does not agree with commenters that non-domiciled CLPs and
CDLs should not be issued at all and has sought a framework that
balances the need for adequate vetting of a driver's safety fitness
while still allowing access to non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs for some
individuals. In addition, the agency is not restricting non-domiciled
licenses further or and reiterates that the final rule does not apply
retroactively.
One commenter believed strengthening SAVE was an option, however,
SAVE is not a system administered by DOT. Therefore, FMCSA has no
control over the development or maintenance of the system. If this
commenter intended to say that FMCSA could ensure States use SAVE more
effectively, the States have already demonstrated that they are not
capable of doing so on a large scale, as highlighted by the findings
from the APRs. Because relying on more effective use of Save by SDLAs
is not practicable based on the issues with relying solely on SAVE,
more restrictive regulations limiting and clarifying the scope of
individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs are necessary to
ensure roadway safety by not allowing ineligible drivers to operate
CMVs.
FMCSA notes that this rulemaking is a systemic safety improvement.
Moreover, it is part of a constellation of actions the agency has
taken, and continues to undertake, that focus on systemic safety
improvements.
b. Additional Oversight of SDLAs
AWM Associates, LLC, Representative Josh Harder, the City of
Manteca, Safety Management Inc., and numerous individuals suggested
better enforcement would be the most effective way of achieving the
goals set out in the IFR. The City of Manteca expressed support for
ensuring proper issuance of CDLs by SDLAs. AWM Associates, LLC and
numerous individuals described issues with State CDL office
implementation. NJSBCA requested development of a re-certification
process for States' non-domiciled CDL programs to verify compliance
with Federal requirements. NJSBCA asked for a verification framework to
ensure expedited review of compliance for non-domiciled CDLs or CLPs
for essential service providers such as school bus drivers. Accion
Opportunity Fund suggested that instead of the IFR, State non-
compliance would be better addressed with Federal technical assistance
to upgrade SDLA data systems and for digital document retention and
SAVE integration; staff training with non-compliance penalties; and
multilingual outreach materials to educate small carriers and drivers
on compliance. Accion Opportunity Fund suggested a targeted grant or
technical assistance program to help with these upgrades for SDLAs,
which vary widely in capacity and technology. ATA said further
strengthening Federal and State oversight of all CDL training, testing,
and issuance is a crucial step to help identify and correct improper
licensing practices, ensure verification of Federal qualifications
before issuance, and support the removal of noncompliant training
providers.
ATA also urged FMCSA to improve tracking of the number of new CDLs
issued annually on a State-by-State basis, including non-domiciled
CDLs. An individual recommended addressing operational gaps with
fallback measures, measurable benchmarks, and harmonized workflows, all
of which would help SDLAs implement the new standards effectively.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA continues to review SDLA implementation through the APR
process. In addition, the agency will continue to utilize its oversight
authorities and support mechanisms, such as grants, to support SDLAs in
implementing the requirements in this final rule to the extent
practicable.
c. Additional Enforcement Measures
Numerous individuals suggested that stricter penalties for
violations would be a more effective approach for addressing safety.
Martin Luther King County requested that FMCSA more actively enforce
pre-existing CDL requirements. An individual stated that if a person
obtained a fraudulent CDL, they along with the entity that issued them
the license, should be prosecuted. An individual wrote that
individuals, including those in law enforcement, that allow foreign
persons to drive with illegal licenses should be held accountable.
Similarly, an individual stated that accountability belongs to the
agency that issued the CDL improperly, but not with law abiding
drivers. An individual wrote that non-domiciled CDLs should not be
banned, but that the government should investigate fake licenses and
suspend all work authorized licenses in California.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA has already been engaged in enforcement of the non-domiciled
regulations through the APR process, as discussed above in VI.A.3.a.
The agency will continue to enforce the FMCSRs to promote safety.
d. Safe Driving History and Grandfathering
Several individuals expressed that the IFR will negatively impact
individuals who have been driving safely for years and who have
obtained their licenses through proper legal channels. Two individuals
wrote that they support the focus on improving safety but stated that
there are many drivers who have not broken any rules and need CDLs to
support themselves and their families. The Asian Law Caucus, the Joint
Organization comment, and numerous individuals provided personal
anecdotes or discussed that many non-domiciled drivers have worked for
years without violations, have worked for years without tickets, have
not been in any accidents, have a history of clean inspections, do not
have criminal records, or are experienced professionals with previous
driving experience in other countries before working in the United
States. Numerous individuals expressed concern that drivers impacted by
the IFR follow the rules and care about safety. The California Bus
Association stated that revoking or restricting the ability of non-
domiciled CDL holders to work ignores documented histories of safe
operation. Four individuals reasoned that not all immigrants are
violators or irresponsible drivers.
Many individuals requested that FMCSA grandfather in existing CDL
holders, or people who are in the process of obtaining their CDLs. An
individual stated that adding this protection for existing non-
domiciled CDL holders, at least for the duration of their current
license term, balances security with fairness and prevents needless
harm to hard-working individuals. Two individuals said that drivers
that have held a CDL for more than 2 years with a clean record must be
allowed to renew their licenses. An individual suggested that drivers
with clean safety records and neither drug nor alcohol violations
should be temporarily grandfathered and required to pass expedited,
standardized re-testing within 6 months. An individual requested
clarification regarding grandfathering for current non-domiciled CDL
holders.
FMCSA Response
Grandfathering existing non-domiciled CLP and CDL holders would
contradict the purpose of this rule. These drivers obtained their
licenses under the prior regulations and their safety fitness was not
adequately
[[Page 7088]]
verified by SDLAs as they would be under the enhanced procedures for
the employment-based nonimmigrant statuses included in this final rule.
Allowing those individuals to retain their non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs
would continue to allow unvetted drivers to operate CMVs, which is the
exact problem this rule is intended to address.
In addition, the recommended provisions or exceptions for drivers
with clean driving records would unduly burden and complicate the
administration of the CDL regulations in a system that was already
failing to administer the less complicated approach properly. This rule
closes a critical safety gap in FMCSA's regulations and necessarily
narrows the eligibility to those employment-based nonimmigrant
categories that can be appropriately vetted without creating an
unworkable framework for the SDLAs.
Finally, a non-domiciled CDL is inextricably tethered to the
holder's underlying temporary immigration status. That status is, by
definition, finite, revocable, and subject to change at the discretion
of federal immigration authorities. The agency cannot be held to
grandfather a population of drivers whose very eligibility was
conditional from the moment of issuance. To find otherwise would be to
convert a temporary regulatory privilege into a permanent right.
9. Other General Comments
a. English Language Proficiency (ELP)
Numerous individuals discussed that the IFR disproportionately
impacts non-English speaking drivers. Some individuals expressed
concern about non-domiciled drivers' inability to read and understand
English. Multiple individuals described situations where drivers missed
important safety warnings, speed limits, weight restrictions, and
construction zone notifications because they could not comprehend the
highway signs. Five individual commenters mentioned that this inability
to understand signs led to dangerous situations, including wrong-way
driving and illegal maneuvers. Similarly, America First Legal
Foundation and two individuals described incidents where drivers took
routes prohibited for trucks, attempted dangerous U-turns, or failed to
slow down in construction zones because they could not read the warning
signs. Three individuals stated that they had personally intervened to
prevent accidents caused by non-domiciled drivers who misunderstood
signage.
Six individuals mentioned communication barriers as a significant
safety concern. Five individuals described situations where non-
domiciled drivers were unable to communicate with law enforcement,
emergency responders, shippers, receivers, and other drivers. Three
individuals shared experiences of non-domiciled drivers using
translation apps or requiring interpreters for basic interactions,
which they viewed as inadequate for emergency situations. Two
individuals expressed concern that in emergency situations, these
communication barriers could prevent timely response or coordination.
Representative Josh Harder, Taj motors, and many individuals
suggested that FMCSA should pursue increased ELP testing rather than
restrictions based on immigration status to address the goals of the
IFR. Numerous individuals suggested specific ELP tests like
International English Language Testing System or Test of English as a
Foreign Language. AWM Associates, LLC stated that 49 CFR 383.133(c)(5)
requires CDL skills tests to be conducted in English. Two individuals
said that when licenses come up for renewal, the driver should be
required to pass an English test. An individual stated that enforcement
of English language requirements in 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) has varied
widely across States. AWM Associates, LLC stated that the issue of
drivers lacking English proficiency stems from non-compliance by States
and FMCSA in following the FMCSRs.
FMCSA Response
Commenters correctly point to the ELP requirement in 49 CFR
391.11(b)(2) and the requirement in 49 CFR 383.133(c)(5) for CDL skills
tests to be conducted in English. The ELP requirement in 49 CFR
391.11(b)(2) has been in place for decades and interstate drivers,
regardless of their nationality, have been required to meet those
requirements. As stated above, the enhanced screening and vetting
procedures from the U.S. Department of State require ``that applicants
can 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.'' This requirement ensures that non-
domiciled drivers can meet the driver qualification requirements of
Sec. 391.11(b)(2) and possess the basic English skills necessary to
operate a CMV safely.
In addition, FMCSA has taken actions outside of this rulemaking to
address the ELP requirement in Sec. 391.11(b)(2). In May 2025, FMCSA
issued a new internal policy memo and a guidance question on ELP to
clarify the enforcement of ELP violations.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See FMCSA-DQ-391.11-FAQ001(2025-05-22), available at
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/what-should-motor-carrier-do-assess-cmv-drivers-english-language-proficiency-elp-during.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Training and Testing Requirements
ATA stated that FMCSA's safety monitoring, auditing, and
enforcement actions need to increase to address limitations in the
Training Provider Registry (TPR) to shield prospective drivers and the
public from fraudulent and non-compliant training entities.
An individual elaborated stating that the requirements for truck
driving schools do not ensure safe drivers because schools just teach
students to pass the test without offering any real-world experience.
Similarly, another individual expressed concern that critical checks in
schools are often skipped and large companies without proper oversight
increase safety risks. Another individual wrote that CDL driving
schools should be investigated for corruption. An individual stated
that some Class A training programs have been shortened to meet
industry demand, often preparing students for the test but not for
real-world scenarios such as mountain driving, winter weather,
jackknife risks, or backing long trailers.
FMCSA Response
These comments on training and testing requirements are not within
the scope of the rulemaking because they do not impact the scope of
drivers eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs under the IFR and
final rule. FMCSA does however want to highlight for commenters that
the agency is taking other actions on these concerns and has
specifically taken enforcement actions against nearly 6,700 training
providers for not meeting the Entry Level Driver Training standards
found in the FMCSRs, and is considering other actions to strengthen
training and testing standards and provide greater oversight of CDL
schools and testing facilities.
c. General Safety
ADK TRANS LLC and many individuals expressed that the rule prevents
crashes and saves lives by ensuring only qualified drivers operate
CMVs. Multiple individuals mentioned that the rule restores integrity
to the CDL issuance process and protects the public from unqualified
drivers. One
[[Page 7089]]
individual stated that the rule will ensure that the higher standards
for obtaining a CLP or CDL, compared to a regular license, are
acknowledged since obtaining such credentials requires extensive
training, expenses, and passing certain tests to ensure proper use
relative to the higher risk. Two individuals expressed that the rule
will reduce the number of crashes involving CMVs. America First Legal
Foundation and six individuals mentioned specific fatal crashes that
could have been prevented if stricter CDL requirements had been in
place earlier. America First Legal Foundation stated that States are
violating Federal law by not enforcing critical CDL and CLP standards
and the rule will reduce Americans' risk of injury on roadways by
reducing the number of noncompliant drivers of large trucks.
CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom said the decision
to narrow non-domiciled CLP and CDL eligibility to only those law-
abiding citizens with lawful immigration status will improve the
overall safety of America's roadways and further strengthen the Federal
Government's larger efforts to identify and apprehend threats to the
national security of the United States.
Five individuals described witnessing non-domiciled drivers
engaging in reckless driving behaviors, including speeding, tailgating,
improper lane changes, and aggressive driving. Six individuals said
reckless behavior resulted in near-misses and hazardous situations,
particularly in construction zones or adverse weather conditions.
Several individuals expressed concern that non-domiciled drivers lack
proper training and qualifications to operate commercial vehicles
safely in the United States. Seven individuals believe non-domiciled
drivers have an inadequate understanding of U.S. traffic laws,
insufficient experience with American roadway conditions, and limited
familiarity with industry standards and practices. Six individuals
expressed concern that some drivers received minimal training before
being placed in charge of large CMVs. Two individuals mentioned ``CDL
mills'' that allegedly provided inadequate training to non-domiciled
drivers, focusing only on helping them pass licensing tests rather than
developing comprehensive skills.
FMCSA Response
As discussed throughout the comment responses above the primary
purpose of the IFR and this final rule is to ensure that all CMV
drivers are subject to sufficient vetting to ensure that non-domiciled
drivers are as safe as practicable before allowing them to operate CMVs
on our roadways. This rule rectifies a bifurcated safety standard that
currently subjects domestic and foreign drivers to different standards,
which compromises public safety. While domestic driving records are
obtained through established systems (outlined earlier in this final
rule), no comparable, credible, or standardized source of foreign
driving data exists for non-domiciled applicants. SDLAs are
fundamentally incapable of performing the driver's record checks
required by 49 CFR 383.73(b)(3) for foreign nationals. Consequently,
non-domiciled applicants are effectively vetted against a materially
lower standard, with their foreign driving histories--including
disqualifying offenses or crashes--remaining entirely unknown. This
regulatory blind spot permits individuals with potentially poor safety
records or permanently disqualifying convictions to obtain non-
domiciled CDLs, placing all roadway users at risk. Heightened
interagency Federal vetting is therefore the only mechanism available
to approximate the domestic safety standard and mitigate the risk of
licensing unverified foreign-domiciled drivers.
The employment-based nonimmigrant categories that are eligible for
a non-domiciled CLP or CDL under this final rule are the only
nonimmigrant statuses that have vetting of an individual's safety risk
associated with driving a CMV sufficiently similar to the requirements
for U.S.- domiciled applicants. 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.\70\ In addition to the thorough vetting process detailed in the
IFR, the U.S. Department of State has recently implemented enhanced
vetting processes for non-domiciled drivers entering the United States,
as discussed in the responses to comments above. The enhanced vetting
procedures ensure that individuals seeking entry to the United States
under these employment-based nonimmigrant categories for the purposes
of driving a CMV can meet ELP requirements, show proof that they can
properly operate a CMV, and meet other requirements under the FMCSRs
(such as not having a disqualifying conviction on their driving
record). These additional steps in the vetting and verification process
for non-domiciled individuals ensure that the employment-based
nonimmigrant categories allowed to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs
under this final rule are subject to the most stringent standards
possible, just as their U.S. domiciled counterparts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 90 FR 46515-46516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No additional nonimmigrant categories will be allowed to obtain a
non-domiciled CLP or CDL under this final rule. The limited scope of
nonimmigrant categories subject to the heightened vetting processes
limits the scope of individuals who can be given a non-domiciled
credential with a sufficient degree of confidence in their ability to
drive safely on the Nation's roadways. Commenters were unable to
present any process comparable to the vetting process for individuals
seeking H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 nonimmigrant statuses laid out in the IFR
for any other nonimmigrant status, and further fail to present anything
comparable to the heightened vetting procedures that have since been
implemented by the U.S. Department of State. Without evidence of a
comparable process for any other nonimmigrant categories, FMCSA cannot
include any other categories of nonimmigrants as eligible for non-
domiciled CLPs and CDLs while ensuring the same level of safety granted
by the U.S. Department of State vetting. The comments submitted on the
IFR do not present any practicable alternative that can adequately
account for the lack of driving history for non-domiciled drivers.
d. General Support/Opposition
The California Bus Association, the Sikh Coalition, and numerous
individuals expressed concern that the IFR will unfairly strip non-
domiciled drivers who lawfully obtained their CDLs of their ability to
work due to the mistakes of other immigrants. The American Federation
of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and numerous
individuals stated that the IFR is not safety policy, but rather
discrimination based on national origin. An individual remarked that
changing the rules now unjustly penalizes people who have built their
lives and careers under the previous standards. 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.
Numerous individuals expressed concern that the IFR infringes on
human rights or the rights of vulnerable communities. An individual
stated that legal work is everyone's right. Numerous individuals
remarked that non-domiciled drivers have proven their
[[Page 7090]]
commitment or dedication to serving the country. AFL-CIO and multiple
individuals stated that these drivers are hardworking, law-abiding
individuals who contribute to communities and keep goods moving across
America. The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
remarked that the IFR will prevent many qualified individuals from
getting their licenses. Two individuals expressed concern that
immigrants willing to work for the good of the country will be forced
to leave as a result of the IFR. Numerous individuals stated that they
did not come to the United States to receive handouts, special
treatment, or other financial support from the Federal Government.
Numerous individuals provided personal anecdotes discussing that they
came to the United States to save themselves and their families from
war or political persecution in other countries. Justice at Work stated
that the IFR will make it more difficult for the vulnerable population
of immigrant drivers to rebuild their lives in recovering from unstable
and oppressive circumstances.
Numerous individuals expressed concern that the IFR creates
unnecessary barriers for current and future non-domiciled CDL holders
without improving safety. Specifically, one individual discussed that
the IFR may create hardship for individuals with limited income,
education, or resources trying to become drivers. Multiple individuals
stated that the IFR equates lawfully present immigrants that follow all
legal procedures with illegal immigrants or criminals.
Numerous individuals stated that non-domiciled drivers deserve
equal opportunity. Three individuals stated that laws should protect
opportunity and fairness, not take them away. An individual stated that
imposing categorical restrictions without evidence that citizenship
correlates with safety raises concerns of unequal protection and
selective enforcement. Five individuals stated that the IFR should not
come at the cost of experienced, responsible professionals. Six
individuals specifically requested that FMCSA focus on fair treatment
for all drivers. One individual requested that DOT align the IFR with
Federal immigration law.
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. The Joint Organization comment and numerous individuals added that
granting CDL renewal for individuals with legal work authorization is a
matter of economic stability and public interest. Numerous individuals
provided personal anecdotes or discussed that many non-domiciled CDL
drivers have waited for years for their immigration cases to be heard
in court. One individual remarked that the IFR punishes non-domiciled
drivers for an immigration process outside of their control. Another
individual reasoned that the options proposed in the IFR for non-
domiciled drivers to obtain a green card, U.S. passport, or specific
employment-based visas are unrealistic for most individuals due to
timing and accessibility issues.
Numerous individuals discussed that they completed CDL training or
passed required testing in the United States. Many individuals stated
that they speak English, which supports their ability to understand
road signs, follow traffic laws, or communicate with law enforcement.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), the Asian Law Caucus, Justice at Work, the Joint Organization
comment, and numerous individuals expressed concern that the IFR would
threaten the livelihoods and well-being of legal CDL holders. Numerous
individuals stated that the IFR would lead to financial hardship for
non-domiciled drivers. Numerous individuals also discussed that non-
domiciled drivers support essential industries, or that they need their
CDLs to survive. Numerous individuals stated that trucking is their
only source of income.
Relatedly, three individuals expressed concern that the IFR could
push non-domiciled drivers to pursue work lacking in regulatory
oversight. Numerous individuals requested that FMCSA not take away
jobs.
SALDEF and numerous individuals expressed general concern that the
IFR will subject thousands of families to serious difficulties or leave
them without income. Numerous individuals also stated that the IFR
could leave drivers and their families homeless. Numerous other
individuals expressed concern that the IFR will subject families to
poverty or hunger. AFSCME, the Asian Law Caucus, and numerous
individuals provided personal anecdotes or discussed that CDLs allow
non-domiciled drivers to support their families. A joint comment
between organizations supporting immigrants stated that, on top of
existing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) delays in
processing work authorizations, the IFR will worsen the ability of
impacted drivers to provide for their families. Justice at Work and
numerous individuals provided personal anecdotes or discussed that many
non-domiciled CDL drivers are the sole providers for their families.
Many individuals expressed concern that they and their children rely on
a family member's CDL for income, which in turn supports housing, food,
or stability.
Many individuals stated that the IFR will harm or impact the
ability of non-domiciled individuals to provide for U.S. citizen
children. Numerous individuals discussed that the income earned from
non-domiciled CDLs pays for their children's education. One individual
stated that the IFR undermines efforts in the school transportation
sector to integrate immigrants into their communities through driving
and to ensure children have a safe and reliable way to get to school.
Another individual added that not being able to afford education
expenses could reduce the number of future doctors, engineers,
scientists, and professionals available to serve America. Multiple
individuals also discussed that some non-domiciled drivers use their
CDL income to pay for childcare or activities for their kids, such as
sports programs. An individual expressed concern that their family will
be forced to leave the country because of a lack of work, which would
cause enormous stress for their children. Another individual expressed
concern that a lack of work for non-domiciled drivers could contribute
to other mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and post-
traumatic stress disorder for both children and spouses. Numerous
individuals expressed concern that without a CDL, they will not be able
to cover healthcare expenses or medical bills for their families.
Relatedly, eight individuals stated that the income from a non-
domiciled CDL helps to support their elderly parents.
Multiple individuals expressed general concern regarding the
ability of non-domiciled CDL holders to afford payments without a job.
Relatedly, some individuals expressed concern that the IFR will take
away non-domiciled drivers' ability to live with dignity, independence,
or safety. USW and some individuals discussed that the income or work
from CDLs allows non-domiciled drivers to contribute to the economy.
Multiple individuals also stated that they want or have worked to
integrate into American society. Numerous individuals expressed
[[Page 7091]]
concern that without the ability to work, non-domiciled CDL holders
will not be able to cover basic expenses such as rent and living costs.
Some individuals provided personal anecdotes or discussed that many
non-domiciled drivers consistently pay their mortgages and credit
obligations. Six individuals stated that inability to meet these
financial obligations could lead to increased foreclosures of homes.
Another individual stated the IFR will also impact their ability to
make other payments, including for: utilities, mobile service and
internet, clothing, household goods, electronics, groceries, car loans
and maintenance, and fuel. Numerous individuals provided specific cost
data totaling several thousand dollars per month or year for expenses
such as taxes, mortgages or homeowners' association fees, personal
vehicles, childcare, and family education. One individual stated that
the income from their CDL provides the means to afford the legal fees
related to their immigration case and residency application. Numerous
individuals requested that non-domiciled drivers be able to continue to
work, contribute to the economy, or build a better future.
Multiple individuals questioned what they are supposed to do or
where they should go without their CDLs. One individual expressed
concern that they will have to change their profession and start from
scratch. Another individual stated there are no other jobs to help them
pay their bills. Multiple individuals discussed that they take pride in
or love their professions as commercial drivers. Relatedly, six
individuals discussed that the IFR will take away the lifestyle that
trucking provides.
Multiple individuals expressed concern that the IFR will have real
consequences for ordinary people. USW and numerous individuals also
discussed that the IFR has left non-domiciled drivers feeling
depressed, stressed, or scared. The Sikh Coalition stated that the IFR
presents cascading harm at multiple levels of society, depriving
individual drivers and families of their livelihoods while creating
confusion, increasing the well-documented strain on remaining drivers,
and undermining public safety. They discussed that Sikh truck drivers
have faced a surge in harassment following the issuance of the IFR,
undermining drivers' sense of safety and belonging. An individual
expressed concern how the IFR may affect religious minorities.
Dev Trucking, MMAB Trans Inc., and numerous individuals, expressed
general opposition to the IFR. The National Education Association
stated the IFR is discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious. Multiple
individuals called for the IFR to be withdrawn, arguing that it will
have negative impacts. TOSAM LLC and several individuals asked FMCSA to
reconsider the IFR and better examine the consequences of its
implementation.
STR Bros LLC and multiple individuals stated that the rule unfairly
targets individuals who are legally present and authorized to work in
the United States. Multiple individuals said that these drivers have
valid work permits, paid taxes, and follow all applicable laws and
regulations.
Multiple individuals addressed the safety rationale behind the IFR,
questioning whether immigration status is a valid indicator of driving
safety. An individual wrote that they are not opposed to tighter
regulations but some businesses rely on truckers.
Multiple individuals expressed the need for the IFR, citing
concerns about fraud and lack of integrity in the CDL issuance process
for non-domiciled drivers.
Two individuals suggested that a comprehensive audit of all non-
domiciled CDLs should be conducted to verify their legitimacy. An
individual further stated that this review of non-domiciled licenses is
needed to improve safety on the roads. Two individuals expressed
frustration that they had to comply with strict requirements to obtain
and maintain their CDLs while they perceived others were circumventing
the system.
Three individuals expressed concern that the non-domiciled CDL
program was being used to exploit foreign labor, driving down wages in
the trucking industry. An individual described scenarios where non-
domiciled drivers were being pressured to violate safety regulations
due to their vulnerable status.
An individual also expressed concern that the IFR could create
inconsistent standards across States. Similarly, an individual wrote
that if States do not have the same standards, unqualified applicants
will flock to States with lower standards.
While commending FMCSA's efforts, ATA supported a holistic approach
to CDL credentialling and CMV safety. The commenter suggested that
additional targeted reforms will further reinforce CDL testing and
issuance standards and strengthen the broader safety framework around
commercial driver qualification and vetting.
An individual stated that by restricting eligibility for non-
domiciled CDLs to lawful employment-based nonimmigrant categories and
mandating SAVE verification, FMCSA is restoring the credibility of a
credential that underpins the safety of every road in America.
FMCSA Response
Again, as discussed throughout the comment responses above, the
primary purpose of the IFR and this final rule is to ensure that all
CMV drivers are subject to sufficient vetting to ensure that non-
domiciled drivers are as safe as practicable before allowing them to
operate CMVs on our roadways. FMCSA has detailed in the comment
responses above why this final rule is necessary to achieve the
agency's goal of safety. The individual concerns and impacts raised in
these comments do not outweigh the safety benefits that will be
realized under this final rule.
VII. Changes From the IFR
FMCSA makes minor changes from the IFR. Most of the changes are
technical in nature and are intended to increase clarity. First, the
agency revises the definition for evidence of lawful immigration status
to require an unexpired Admit Until Date on a Form I-94/94A instead of
requiring an unexpired Form I-94/94A. This technical change reflects
language used by DHS when referring to the period of validity for a
Form I-94/94A.
The second revision made in this final rule is the addition of
clarifying language to 49 CFR 383.73(f)(2)(iv) that provides that a
State must never issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL with a period of
validity longer than one year. This change is also a technical revision
to increase clarity and ensure that there is no confusion regarding the
maximum validity period for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. In addition,
FMCSA corrects a cross-reference to paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition
of evidence of lawful immigration status in section 383.73(f)(5). There
was a typographical error in the definition cross-referencing paragraph
(1)(iii) in the IFR.
Paragraph (f)(6) of section 383.73 is revised to clarify that every
non-domiciled CLP or CDL issuance (which includes amending, correcting,
reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL),
transfer, renewal, or upgrade be conducted in-person only and that
issuance, transfer, renewal, or upgrade by mail or electronic means is
not allowed. This additional language further clarifies what was
plainly stated in the IFR regarding the in-person requirements for the
non-domiciled licensing process.
The heading of section 383.73(m)(2) and text of section
384.212(a)(1)(i) are
[[Page 7092]]
revised to reference retention in addition to document verification. In
addition, section 383.212(a)(1)(ii) is deleted and paragraph (iii) is
renumbered to (ii). These changes reflect a clarification of the
documentation verification and retention requirements in these sections
while removing the duplicative paragraph at section 383.212(a)(1)(ii).
These changes do not alter any of the regulatory requirements.
In addition, FMCSA makes a clarifying edit to the parenthetical
that follows issue, issuing, and issuance in various sections amended
by the IFR. The parenthetical in the IFR included amending, correcting,
reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL.
The agency adds reinstating to that list to ensure complete clarity to
the regulated public in the list of actions considered to be issuance
of a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. This change does not add a substantially
new regulatory requirement from the IFR since a reinstatement would
likely be the same as an upgrade, reissuance, or one of the categories
of actions in the parenthetical for issuance under the IFR.
Finally, FMCSA updates the dates in sections 383.73(f)(3)(ii)(A)
and 384.301(q) to the effective date of this final rule.
VIII. International Impacts
Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations
of the countries where they operate, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences between nations in which they operate.
This rule will not impact drivers domiciled in Canada or Mexico.
FMCSA has previously determined that CDLs issued by Canadian Provinces
and Territories in conformity with the Canadian National Safety Code
and ``Licencias Federales de Conductor'' issued by the United Mexican
States are in accordance with the standards of 49 CFR part 383. Under
these reciprocity determinations, drivers that live in Canada and
Mexico would operate in the United States with the license issued by
their country of domicile. Therefore, under the single license
provision of section 383.21, a driver holding a CDL issued under the
Canadian National Safety Code or a ``Licencia Federal de Conductor''
issued by Mexico is prohibited from obtaining a non-domiciled CDL, or
any other type of driver's license, from a State or other jurisdiction
in the United States.
IX. Section-by-Section Analysis
This section-by-section analysis describes the changes to the
regulatory text in numerical order.
A. Regulatory Provisions
Section 383.5 Definitions
FMCSA amends the definition for evidence of lawful immigration
status by revising paragraph (1)(ii) to require ``an unexpired Admit
Until Date'' on a Form I-94/94A instead of requiring ``an unexpired
Form I-94/94A.''
Section 383.73 State Procedures
FMCSA revises paragraph (f)(2)(iv) to add language which provides
that a State must never issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL with a period
of validity longer than 1 year. In addition, in paragraph (f)(5), the
agency replaces a cross-reference to paragraph (1)(iii) of the
definition of evidence of lawful immigration status with a cross
reference to paragraph (1)(ii).
Paragraph (f)(6) of Sec. 383.73 is revised to clarify that every
non-domiciled CLP or CDL issuance (which includes amending, correcting,
reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued
CLP or CDL), transfer, renewal, or upgrade be conducted in-person only
and that issuance, transfer, renewal, or upgrade by mail or electronic
means is not allowed.
The heading of Sec. 383.73(m)(2) is revised to reference retention
in addition to document verification.
The word ``reinstating'' is added to the parentheticals after
``issue,'' ``issuing,'' or ``issuance,'' as appropriate in paragraphs
(f)(3)(ii)(A), (f)(3)(ii)(B), (f)(5), (m)(2), (m)(2)(i), (m)(2)(ii), an
(m)(2)(iii). The effective date in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) is revised
to match the effective date of this final rule.
Section 384.212 Domicile Requirement
FMCSA revises paragraph (a)(1)(i) to reference retention in
addition to document verification. In addition, paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is
removed and paragraph (a)(1) (iii) is redesignated as (a)(1)(ii). The
word ``reinstating,'' is added to the parenthetical after ``issuing''
in paragraph (a)(1)(i).
Section 384.301 Substantial Compliance-General Requirements
Paragraph (q) is amended by adding the word ``reinstating,'' is to
the parenthetical after ``issuing'' and the effective date is revised
to match the effective date of this final rule.
B. Guidance Statements and Interpretations
This final rule amends a regulation that has associated guidance
statements. Such guidance statements do not have the force and effect
of law, are strictly advisory, and are not meant to bind the public in
any way. Conformity with guidance statements is voluntary. Guidance is
intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing
requirements under the law or FMCSA policies. A guidance statement does
not alter the substance of a regulation. The guidance and
interpretation(s) that follow were rescinded via an interim final rule
(IFR) published on September 29, 2025 (90 FR 46509, 46517), but
remained in effect due to a stay order issued by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia on November 13, 2025. The stay
paused the effective date of the IFR, which reinstated the guidance
below.
Therefore, FMCSA now re-rescinds the following guidance:
1. FMCSA-CDL-383.23-FAQ001(2023-05-08): \71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-state-drivers-licensing-agency-sdla-issue-non-domiciled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA rescinds this guidance document, which refers to individuals
present under the DACA immigration policy as citizens of Mexico. It is
no longer applicable under the new requirements to provide evidence of
legal status.
2. FMCSA-CDL-383.23-Q1: \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov//registration/commercial-drivers-license/may-foreign-driver-employment-authorization-document-obtain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA rescinds this guidance document, which refers to foreign
drivers with employment authorization documents. Foreign drivers must
meet the new requirements in this rule to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and
CDLs and the rest of the guidance is unnecessary as it is simply a
restatement of what is already explained in footnote 1 to 49 CFR
383.23.
3. Nomenclature for Non-Domiciled CLPs and CDLs
In addition, some SDLAs were operating under informal guidance
previously issued by FMCSA that permitted States to refer to their non-
domiciled credentials under different nomenclature. FMCSA notes that
during the 2025 APRs, SDLA use of these disparate terms generated
confusion for some SDLAs because it made it difficult to determine
whether the State did in fact issue non-domiciled credentials in the
first place. This final rule
[[Page 7093]]
supersedes any past guidance on this issue and clarifies that sections
383.73(f)(2)(ii) and 383.153(c) require that the word ``non-domiciled''
appear across a CLP or CDL and must ``be conspicuously and unmistakably
displayed'' on the face of the CLP or CDL when a State issues a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL. States may not use other nomenclature (such as
``limited term'' or ``temporary'') as a substitute for ``non-
domiciled,'' use restriction codes that require the examination of fine
print on the back of the license as a substitute for ``non-domiciled''
on the face of the credential, or use any other alternatives to
conspicuously and unmistakably displaying ``non-domiciled'' on the face
of the CDL or CLP.
X. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
OMB has determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735), Regulatory Planning and Review,
because of the substantial Congressional and public interest concerning
issuance of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs. The rulemaking is also
significant under DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Available at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-order-21006b-policies-and-procedures-rulemakings (Mar. 10,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule amends the Federal regulations for SDLAs issuing
commercial driving credentials to foreign-domiciled individuals.
Through this rulemaking, FMCSA restores the integrity of the CDL
issuance processes by significantly limiting the authority for SDLAs to
issue and renew non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to individuals domiciled in
a foreign jurisdiction.
The analysis below discusses the affected entities, the need for
the regulation, and the costs, benefits, and transfers that may result
from this final rule. FMCSA has not made significant changes to the RIA
that was prepared for the IFR. This RIA provides additional detail on
the impact to motor carriers and drivers that could result from the
rule, provides more information regarding the CDL composite wage rate,
and more detail surrounding underlying analysis inputs. Most notably,
as discussed below, FMCSA found evidence suggesting that most foreign-
domiciled CDLs were likely issued with five-year expiration dates and
updated this assumption from the two-year expiration date in the IFR.
The analysis includes additional crashes that have been identified
since the publication of the IFR.
Analysis Inputs
Baseline
OMB circular A-4 instructs agencies to identify a baseline, or an
assessment of the way the world would look absent the rulemaking such
that the costs and benefits of the rulemaking can be defined in
comparison to the clearly identified baseline. The choice of baseline
is not always simple, and in this case takes careful consideration. The
IFR assumed the current environment at the time to be the baseline.
That is to say, that the acute systemic problems regarding non-
domiciled CDL issuance across the country had not been addressed, and
would not have been addressed absent the IFR. Since that time, and as
discussed above, many States have been required to pause issuance of
all non-domiciled CDLs as part of the corrective action plan for the
deficiencies discovered under the APR and others have voluntarily
paused issuance of all non-domiciled CDLs to conduct internal audits of
their issuance procedures and processes apart from FMCSA's APR process.
The question then becomes whether the baseline should now be the
current, post-IFR world where some States are no longer issuing non-
domiciled CDLs. FMCSA believes that the States are working diligently
to restore integrity to their programs, and other States are waiting to
see what actions FMCSA takes in the coming months. This has also been
documented in industry publications.\74\ FMCSA thus considers, absent
this rulemaking, any pause in non-domiciled CDL issuance to be
temporary, with the future reverting back to the pre-IFR standards for
issuance. This rule sets out a clearly defined standard for non-
domiciled CDL issuance that will remain in effect unless changed by a
future rulemaking. Therefore, in order to provide a clear picture of
the impact of this policy change, FMCSA has concluded that it is
appropriate to use the pre-IFR baseline and estimates the following
costs and benefits accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15814539/new-jersey-resumes-nondomiciled-cdl-issuance-after-fmcsa-crackdownZ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wage Rates
FMCSA computes its estimates of labor costs using data gathered
from several sources. Labor costs are comprised of wages, fringe
benefits, and overhead. Fringe benefits include paid leave, bonuses and
overtime pay, health and other types of insurance, retirement plans,
and legally required benefits (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment
insurance, and workers compensation insurance). Overhead includes any
expenses to a firm associated with labor that are not part of
employees' compensation; this typically includes many types of fixed
costs of managing a body of employees, such as management and human
resource staff salaries or payroll services. The economic costs of
labor to a firm should include the costs of all forms of compensation
and labor related expenses.
FMCSA used the driver wage rate to represent the value of the
drivers' time that, in the absence of the rule, would have been spent
gainfully employed and performing duties as a CMV driver. The source
for driver wages is the median hourly wage data (May 2024) from DOL,
BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES).\75\ The CMV driver wage
is a weighted average of three occupational codes that require a CDL:
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers, 53-3051 Bus Drivers,
School, and 53-3052, Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity. BLS does not
publish data on fringe benefits for specific occupations, but it does
for the broad industry groups in its Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation release. To calculate the fringe benefits rate, this
analysis uses an average hourly wage of $32.71 and average hourly
benefits of $14.99 for private industry workers in ``transportation and
warehousing'' \76\ to estimate that fringe benefits are equal to 45.83
percent ($14.99 / $32.71) of wages.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ DOL, BLS. Occupational Employment Statistics (OES),
National, May 2024, available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm
(accessed Aug. 27, 2025).
\76\ DOL, BLS. Table 4: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
for private industry workers by occupational and industry group,
December 2024, available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03142025.htm (accessed Sep. 9, 2025).
\77\ FMCSA's standard approach to accounting for the opportunity
cost of drivers' time considers hourly base wage plus fringe
benefits, but exclusive of overhead, representing the value to the
driver of his or her forgone best alternative (i.e., in the absence
of this rule it is assumed these individuals would be working during
that time and as such, the analysis values that time at the same
amount that they accept in exchange for it, that is, their base wage
plus fringe benefits). Including an overhead rate as a component
element of the driver wage rate, over and above the base wage and
fringe benefits, for the purposes of evaluating the opportunity cost
to drivers does not accurately reflect the value as incident upon
the driver (because the value of the overhead component of wage
rates is not incident upon, nor received as compensation by, the
driver, as are base wages and fringe benefits).
[[Page 7094]]
Table 1--CDL Holder Composite Hourly Median Wage Rate and Fringe Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median hourly
Hourly median Fringe base wage +
Occupation (SOC code) Employment wage benefits rate fringe
(%) benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers (53- 2,070,480 $27.62 45.83 $39.19
3032)..........................................
Bus Drivers, School (53-3051)................... 387,920 22.62
Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity (53-3052).... 148,980 27.61
CDL Holder Composite Wage....................... .............. 26.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current CDL holders that will no longer be eligible for a CDL will
likely look for employment in other occupations. The following table
provides an overview of median hourly wage rates for some occupations
that are in transportation or transportation-adjacent industries for
which CDL holders would generally have the necessary skills to be
successful, and therefore could be alternatives to positions requiring
a CDL, which shows a weighted median wage rate of $21.62 and a loaded
composite wage rate of $31.53. FMCSA presents this information for
illustrative purposes only and is not suggesting that this is the
maximum wage available to non-domiciled CDL holders.
Table 2--Hourly Median Wage and Fringe Benefits for Non-CDL Requiring Occupations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median hourly
Hourly median Fringe base wage +
Occupation (SOC code) Employment wage benefits rate fringe
(%) benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks (43- 4,900 $21.74 45.83 $31.53
5071)..........................................
Agricultural Equipment Operators (45-2091)...... 420 23.88
Construction Equipment Operators (47-2070)...... 3,420 24.30
Light Truck Drivers (53-3033)................... 49,890 21.65
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment (53-7061).... 3,760 18.56
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material 107,290 21.62
Movers, Hand (53-7062).........................
Tank Car, Truck, and Ship Loaders (53-7121)..... 250 20.68
Composite Non-CDL Holder Wage................... .............. 21.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA used the wage rate for employees in office and administrative
support to represent the value of the SDLA employees' time that, in the
absence of the rule, would have been spent performing other duties and
responsibilities. The source for SDLA employees' wages is the median
hourly wage data (May 2024) from the BLS' OES. To calculate the fringe
benefits rate, this analysis uses an average hourly wage of $25.56 and
average hourly benefits of $18.95 for State and local government
workers in ``office and administrative support'' to estimate that
fringe benefits are equal to 74.14 percent ($18.95 / $25.56) of wages.
FMCSA uses the Census Bureau's Service Annual Survey (SAS) Table 5 data
to calculate overhead expenses and their ratio to gross annual payroll
expenses for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
484 (Truck Transportation) and NAICS 485 (Transit and Ground Passenger)
industries.\78\ FMCSA reviewed SAS data from 2013 through 2021, finding
2015 to be the most appropriate baseline from which to estimate
industry overhead rates. While it is typically preferrable to use the
most recent information, data from 2020 was an anomalous year with
especially high overhead rates, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
subsequent business disruptions. For the 2018 and 2019 SAS tables,
Census greatly reduced the number of expenses published in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See SAS Table 5, available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sas/data/tables.html (accessed: Sept. 10, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the assigned expense categories as overhead, FMCSA
followed two steps to calculate the overhead rate. First, FMCSA added
together the seven overhead expense categories (expensed purchases of
software; data processing and other purchased computer services;
purchased repairs and maintenance to buildings, structures, and
offices; lease and rental payments for land, buildings, structures,
store spaces, and offices; purchased advertising and promotional
services; purchased professional and technical services; and cost of
insurance). FMCSA then divided the sum of the overhead expense
categories by gross annual payroll. Following this approach including
only the seven expense categories most focused on firm fixed expenses,
the 2015 overhead expenses in truck transportation would be $13.0
billion.\79\ Dividing the $13.0 billion overhead by $62 billion gross
annual payroll gives a 21 percent overhead rate for NAICS 484. The 2015
overhead expenses in passenger and ground transportation would be $3.1
billion. Dividing the $3.1 billion overhead by the $13 million gross
annual payroll gives a 23 percent overhead rate for NAICS 485. FMCSA
then combined the expense and payroll categories for both industries to
calculate an average transportation industry overhead rate of 21
percent for use in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The seven expense categories included in this overhead
estimate are: ``Expensed purchases of software'' ($321 million),
``Data processing and other purchased computer services'' ($320
million), ``Purchased repairs and maintenance to buildings,
structures, and offices'' ($541 million), ``Lease and rental
payments for land, buildings, structures, store spaces, and
offices'' ($3,067 million), ``Purchased advertising and promotional
services'' ($507 million), ``Purchased professional and technical
services'' ($1,782 million), and ``Cost of insurance'' ($6,535
million).
[[Page 7095]]
Table 3--SDLA Hourly Median Wage Rate, Fringe Benefits, and Overhead Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median hourly
Fringe Median hourly base wage +
BLS occupation code Occupation Hourly median benefits rate Overhead rate base wage + fringe
wage (%) (%) fringe benefits +
benefits overhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43-1011................................... First-Line Supervisors of $31.80 74.14 21 $55.38 $62.05
Office and Administrative
Support Workers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average SDLA Fee for License Renewal
FMCSA reviewed fees for CDL renewal across all 51 (50 States and
the District of Columbia) jurisdictions and found that renewal fees
range from $5 to $164.50. The average renewal fee is $55.28, and FMCSA
uses an estimate of $55 to represent the renewal fee paid by non-
domiciled CDL applicants.
Crash Costs
FMCSA uses crash cost values to assess and estimate the safety
benefits of various regulatory initiatives. FMCSA publishes its
methodology for calculating crash costs for fatal, injury, and non-
injury crashes on its website.\80\ The values below incorporate the
most recent crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, from calendar year 2023, inflated to 2024 values based
on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2024-12/FMC-PRE-240812-001-Federal%20Motor%20Carrier%20Safety%20Administraction%20Crash%20Cost%20Methdology%20Report-2024_0.pdf.
Table 4--CMV Crash Cost, by Crash Type
[In 2024 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMV crash
Crash type costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per non injury crash............................... $52,864
Cost per injury crash................................... 400,025
Cost per fatal crash.................................... 15,739,682
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Turnover and Churn Rates
Employment turnover and churn are well-documented features of the
CMV industry. The 2025 update to ATRI's Analysis of the Operational
Costs of Trucking reports that the average driver turnover rate,
weighted by sector representation was 48 percent in 2024.\81\ Driver
turnover in the truckload sector ranges from 44.3 percent to 72.1
percent depending on the size of the carrier. The OOIDA foundation
finds that while driver churn affects large truckload carriers to a
greater extent than small carriers, it is endemic to the entire
industry, and something that carriers have been managing for many
years.\82\ ATA published data showing the over-the-road for-hire truck
driver turnover for large truckload carriers ranged from 81 to 90
percent between 2016 and 2020.\83\ For small truckload carriers, the
turnover ranged from 69 to 79 percent. Other sources also highlight
these industry trends with Tenstreet reporting that about 30 percent of
drivers leave their carrier after 3 months, and only roughly 40 percent
stay with that carrier for an entire year.\84\ Outside of the private
truckload carriers, many drivers routinely move from carrier to carrier
or exit the market based on various factors. This phenomenon is not
confined to the trucking industry. The American Public Transportation
Association reports that 59 percent of departures happen within the
first two years of employment.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ATRI, Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2025
Update, Page 48, available for download at https://truckingresearch.org/about-atri/atri-research/operational-costs-of-trucking/.
\82\ https://www.ooida.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/The-Churn-A-Brief-Look-at-the-Roots-of-High-Driver-Turnover-in-U.S.-Trucking.pdf.
\83\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2021-07/MCSAC%20Truck%20Driver%20Market%20Update%20-%20July%202021.pdf.
\84\ Tenstreet, Q1 Insights on Recruiting and Retention, page
10. Available at: https://www.tenstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tenstreet-Q1-Recruiting-and-Retention-eBook.pdf.
\85\ https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Transit-Workforce-Shortage-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Domiciled CDL Expiration Date and Attrition Rate
Properly issued non-domiciled CDLs contain an expiration date in-
line with the documentation provided to the SDLA (e.g., EAD). During
the APR process FMCSA reviewed thousands of non-domiciled CDL
credentials and found that properly issued non-domiciled CDLs have
expiration rates up-to five years \86\ following the date of issuance.
As such, FMCSA estimates that drivers who will no longer be eligible
for a non-domiciled CDL will exit the market over the course of the
next five years when their license comes up for renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ FMCSA acknowledges that this is a significant change from
the IFR. However, this is consistent with the September 27, 2023
USCIS Policy Alert that extended the maximum validity period for
EADs for many statuses from 1 or 2 years to 5 years. See https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20230927-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf. USCIS issued a Dec. 4,
2025 Policy Alert that superseded the 2023 policy (see https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf); however, FMCSA
believes that the majority of the non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs
relevant to this analysis were issued during the time that the 2023
policy was in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Entities
SDLAs
This final rule will impact the SDLAs in 47 States that issued non-
domiciled CDLs prior to the publication of the IFR (AL, MS, TN, and WV
do not issue non-domiciled CDLs).
Drivers
This final rule will impact current and prospective non-domiciled
CDL holders. Drivers will be required to provide additional
documentation, and in some cases will no longer be eligible for a non-
domiciled CDL. FMCSA gathered information on current CLP and CDL
holders during the APRs discussed earlier in the preamble and estimates
that there are approximately 200,000 non-domiciled CDL holders, and
approximately 20,000 non-domiciled CLP holders. Upon renewal, some
number of these individuals will no longer be eligible for a non-
domiciled CDL and will have their credential downgraded. In an effort
to determine the number of drivers that will still be eligible for non-
domiciled CDLs, FMCSA spoke with other Government agencies and reviewed
data from SDLAs and other on-line resources. Approximately 500 to 600
individuals receive a H-2B status with the intent to operate a CMV each
year. This nonimmigrant classification can be granted for up to the
period of time authorized on the temporary labor certification and may
be extended for qualifying employment in increments of
[[Page 7096]]
up to 1 year.\87\ FMCSA thus assumes that 500 to 600 individuals will
seek a non-domiciled CDL, including renewals or extensions, each year.
FMCSA does not have clear estimates of the number of H-2A workers that
intend to operate a CMV because it is often incidental to the work they
are doing. The Office of Homeland Security Statistics yearbook
estimates that approximately 27,240 H-2A visas were issued to
individuals from countries other than Canada and Mexico in 2023.\88\
This represents an upper bound in that it is highly unlikely that all
of these individuals would seek a CDL. The BLS reports employment based
on industry and occupational code. In 2024, BLS estimates that there
were approximately 15,000 heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers in
the agricultural industry.\89\ Many of these drivers are U.S. citizens
and would not seek a non-domiciled CDL. FMCSA makes the simplifying
assumption that \1/3\ of these individuals hold H-2A status, are not
domiciled in either Canada or Mexico, and will be applying for non-
domiciled CDLs each year. FMCSA was unable to find data specific to the
number of E-2 visa holders that would apply for a non-domiciled CDL but
estimates that the number would not exceed 300 drivers. Including the
individuals in all applicable nonimmigrant categories (H-2A, H-2B, and
E-2) FMCSA estimates that SDLAs will issue approximately 6,000 non-
domiciled CDLs per year. The remaining roughly 194,000 current non-
domiciled CDL holders will exit the freight market, which is discussed
in more detail in the cost section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers.
\88\ Available at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2023/table25.
\89\ Available at https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=111000&ioType=i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carriers
This final rule will impact motor carriers that currently, or
intend to, employ non-domiciled CDL holders that are no longer eligible
to receive a credential. There are approximately 785,000 for-hire and
private motor carriers. Assuming that each impacted motor carrier
employs one non-domiciled CDL holder, a maximum of 194,000 (or 25
percent) could be impacted by this rulemaking.\90\ To be clear, the
maximum of 194,000 is an extreme upper bound estimate based on an
assumption that no single motor carrier employs more than one non-
domiciled CDL holder. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that 25
percent of motor carriers will be impacted by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ FMCSA Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.
Available at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-09/FMCSA%20Pocket%20Guide%202024-v6%20508%20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for the Regulation
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
rectifies 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), which has proven administratively unworkable and
resulted in widespread regulatory non-compliance.
Costs
This final rule will require States and their SDLAs to verify
additional documentation, utilize SAVE, and retain copies of the
verified documents in their records. FMCSA anticipates that States will
issue fewer non-domiciled CDLs, but that each credential will require
additional time to verify and retain documents. Currently, States are
not required to pay transaction fees to query SAVE, and FMCSA does not
estimate a fee impact for that transaction, nor does it believe that
the additional queries resulting from this rule would have more than a
de minimis impact on the cost of operating the SAVE system. Lastly,
States that choose to issue non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs will be
required to pause issuance of those CDLs and CLPs until they can ensure
compliance with the updated regulations. FMCSA anticipates that States
will incur costs in the process of realigning their non-domiciled CDL
program issuance with the standards set forth in this final rule.
However, SDLAs are able to apply for and use CDLPI grants to come into
or maintain compliance with the requirements of this rule.
FMCSA estimates that verifying and retaining additional
documentation and running a SAVE query will require approximately 15
minutes of time per query for SDLA personnel. FMCSA estimates that the
total cost, across all impacted SDLAs, will total approximately $93,075
per year (6,000 applicants x $62.05 wage rate x 15 minutes). During the
APRs FMCSA determined that some States were already running SAVE
queries as part of their business process. To the extent that States
were already in compliance with this requirement (i.e., running a SAVE
query or a functional equivalent that is merely a pass-through to SAVE
to verify lawful permanent residence), they would not experience
additional costs to comply with this regulation.
Each SDLA has developed a process that is unique to their State,
and as such, will incur different costs to adjust their program. Some
program adjustments could include reprograming the IT system to
interpret SAVE results in alignment with the new standards, changing
the credential that is issued to ensure that ``non-domiciled'' is
conspicuously and unmistakably displayed on the face of the CLP or CDL,
and ensuring that SDLA employees are properly issuing non-domiciled
CDLs and retaining appropriate records. FMCSA is unable to estimate a
specific cost for each SDLA due to the variance in current non-
domiciled CDL issuance (e.g., many SDLA systems already issue
credentials with ``non-domiciled'' displayed on the face of the
credential and some SDLAs were already retaining appropriate records to
document the issuance process). FMCSA has previously estimated costs of
approximately $70,000 (in 2024 dollars) to develop an interface between
the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse and the SDLA IT system.\91\ This
would likely overestimate the cost of reprogramming State IT systems to
interpret SAVE results because SDLAs are already interfacing with SAVE
for purposes of REAL ID and this change will represent an adjustment to
the existing interface. It is, however, a reasonable estimate of the
average impact for States to align their non-domiciled CDL program with
the standards set forth in this rule (inclusive of IT system upgrades,
credential updates, and ensuring staff are properly issuing
credentials). FMCSA thus assumes that each of the 47 affected SDLAs
will incur costs of $70,000 in the first year of the analysis, on
average, resulting in total first year costs for program realignment of
$3.3 million (47 SDLAs x $70,000 = $3,290,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Controlled Substances and Alcohol Testing 86 FR 55718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will also result in costs to non-domiciled CDL
drivers as they will now be required to renew their license in person
every year, which increases the amount of time needed to renew the
license. Previously, some drivers were likely able to renew online or
via mail and had expiration dates beyond a one-year timeframe, up to
five
[[Page 7097]]
years. FMCSA assumes that non-domiciled CDL holders will renew their
license at the time of expiration printed on their existing credential
such that only \1/5\ of drivers will incur a renewal cost in the first
year, \2/5\ of drivers in the second year, and so forth. Beginning in
the fifth year, all 6,000 non-domiciled CDL holders will be renewing in
person each year. FMCSA further assumes that renewal on-line or via
mail requires about one hour of time, and that in-person renewal
requires approximately four hours. The additional time allows for
commuting to and from the SDLA and any appointment delays and wait
times associated with in-person service. Consequently, the change in
renewal impact is based on the period of validity for the credential
and the difference in time associated with in-person renewal.
Individuals with a one-year validity period will experience an increase
of three hours each year, while individuals with a five-year validity
period will see an annual average increase of 3.8 hours (4 hours-(1
hour / 5 years) = 3.8) The average increase across all validity periods
is 3.54 hours (4 hour in-person renewal minus 0.46 average annual
renewal time across all validity periods). In the first year of the
analysis period, only \1/5\ of the 6,000 non-domiciled CDLs holders
will renew their licenses, at a cost of $166,636 (6,000 x \1/5\ x
$39.19 x 3.54 hours). FMCSA estimates that in the fifth year of the
analysis period, all 6,000 non-domiciled CDL holders will renew their
license in person, resulting in total annual costs of $833,179 (6,000
applicants x $39.19 x 3.54 hours).
FMCSA anticipates that drivers who will no longer be eligible for a
non-domiciled CDL will be able to find similar employment in other
sectors or occupations within the transportation sector (e.g.,
construction, driving vehicles that do not require a CDL, etc.). As
discussed above, turnover has been an integral component in the
industry for many years, and drivers are constantly looking for
different opportunities. FMCSA anticipates, based on well-documented
historical trends, that many of these non-domiciled CDL holders would
have been looking for new employment opportunities regardless of this
final rule, particularly given the temporary nature of non-domiciled
CDLs. Those drivers that would have continued driving a vehicle
requiring a CDL will experience an opportunity cost as they transition
to their next best alternative. That cost can be represented as the
difference in wage between the CDL holder ($39.19) and the next best
available opportunity ($31.53). FMCSA notes that some of this wage
differential likely accounts for the challenges inherent to long haul
trucking and transit and intercity bus service such as limited home
time and long work days. For an individual driver, the representative
annual impact would be approximately $16,000 (($39.19-$31.53) x 2,080
working hours per year). FMCSA does not expect individual drivers to
experience prolonged unemployment as a result of the final rule due to
the interconnected nature of CDL-holding occupations with adjacent
industries that employ individuals in the occupations considered among
the next best available opportunities. In addition, with up to five
years before the expiration of NDCDLs, individuals have ample time to
proactively locate employment that does not require a CDL, whether in
the occupations FMCSA considered or in other career paths. FMCSA
stresses that the majority of these drivers are likely to have left the
industry regardless of this rule given the high rate of churn inherent
to the industry and that this impact is provided to demonstrate that,
regardless of the ability to continue to hold a CDL, these individuals
will still have opportunities to be gainfully employed. This estimate
is included for illustrative purposes, but FMCSA does not consider it
to be a cost of the final rule.
Motor carriers that currently employ non-domiciled CDL holders will
have ample time to adjust to the change as the drivers will be aware if
their license will not be renewed under the standards set forth in this
final rule. Further, non-domiciled CDL credentials were never meant to
be permanent documents, but to have an expiration date based on the
length of the individual's employment authorization. As such, motor
carriers should have been aware that these drivers might have been
unable to continue holding a CDL based on the individual's employment
authorization. Lastly, given the industry norm regarding movement of
drivers and the constant need for hiring, FMCSA considers motor
carriers to be well equipped to handle any driver replacement
necessitated by this rule. Further, the five-year attrition will assist
in mitigating any impacts to motor carriers. While this exit from the
market might come earlier than anticipated in some instances, the non-
domiciled CDL credentials were always meant to be temporary with
expiration dates based on the individual's employment authorization. At
most, this rule would result in a temporal shift in impact related to
that subset of non-domiciled CDL holders that would not have looked for
alternative employment within five years but, given the high rate of
churn in the industry, would have sought alternative employment at a
later date.
Regarding potential economic impacts within the freight market,
FMCSA looked at data during and after the COVID-19 pandemic to
understand how the market may react to a reduction in CDL holders and
found that the freight market tends to be flexible and responsive to
external factors. During the COVID-19 pandemic the industry saw a
historic increase in spot market rates, followed by a record influx of
motor carriers and drivers entering the market to meet the increased
demand.\92\ In 2021 there was a nearly 20 percent increase in the
number of interstate motor carriers and a 6 percent increase in the
number of interstate CDL drivers.\93\ Since that time, the rates have
fallen, as have load volumes and the number of motor
carriers.94 95 This market fluctuation is also evidenced by
the Cass Shipment Index, the Cass Truckload Line Haul Index, and the
BLS General Freight Long-Distance Truckload Employment figures which
collectively show a spike in demand from 2020 to 2021 that has trended
downward thereafter.\96\ There are roughly 200,000 non-domiciled CDL
holders, which is approximately five percent of the 3.8 million active
interstate CDL holders in 2024. FMCSA anticipates that these drivers
will exit the market over approximately five years as their credentials
come up for renewal, and that the market will respond to this change in
capacity as it has in the past, with drivers and carriers responding to
market signals and ensuring that freight is delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Available at https://www.bts.gov/freight-indicators#spot-rates.
\93\ Data available from MCMIS.
\94\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Truck Spot Rates Jan
2015-Oct 2023. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/info-gallery/truck-spot-rates-jan-2015-oct-2023.
\95\ FMCSA 2024 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.
Table 1-8. Available at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/commercial-motor-vehicle-facts.
\96\ Cass Shipment Index: https://www.cassinfo.com/freight-audit-payment/cass-transportation-indexes/cass-freight-index Cass
Truckload Line Haul Index: https://www.cassinfo.com/freight-audit-payment/cass-transportation-indexes/truckload-linehaul-index BLS
General Freight Long-Distance Truckload Employment: https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES4348412101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current conditions in the freight market are conducive to just this
type of adjustment. Carriers have been struggling with excess capacity
since the freight recession began in 2022. Some
[[Page 7098]]
describing the ``Great Freight Recession [as] defined not by a dramatic
crash but by its grinding duration.'' \97\ JB Hunt, in a 2024 letter to
their shareholders and employees, stated that ``more than 30 months
into this unprecedented freight recession marked by too much industry
capacity, we continue to be challenged . . . across our organization.''
\98\ Further, drivers have increased their dead-head miles, and trucks
have been sidelined as the freight recession has continued.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ https://tanktransport.com/2025/08/great-freight-recession-2025/.
\98\ https://investor.jbhunt.com/~/media/Files/J/jb-hunt-ir/
documents/annual-reports/annual-report-2024.pdf.
\99\ ATRI Operational Cost of Trucking, p. 54, available for
download at https://truckingresearch.org/about-atri/atri-research/operational-costs-of-trucking/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available unemployment data from BLS on the broader Transportation
and Utilities sector also supports this assumption. BLS does not
directly track the unemployment rate of CDL holders, however, it
publishes data on the broader Transportation and Utilities sector,
reporting a 4.4 percent unemployment rate, or 371,000 unemployed
persons in the sector as of November 2025.\100\ While this is not the
sole sector in which CDL holders are employed, it is the closest
official proxy available and suggests that the labor supply is not
constrained to the extent that the periodic attrition over five years
of non-domiciled CDL holders impacted by the final rule is likely to
overburden the CDL holder labor supply. Therefore, due to the prolonged
five-year period of attrition, motor carriers will have time to adjust
their hiring based on the requirements set forth in this final rule,
including by marketing available positions to drivers with the proper
qualifications to obtain a CDL, many of whom have been sidelined in
recent years due to the freight recession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment rate and
unemployed persons data. Available at https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNU04032236 and https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNU03032236, respectively (accessed
January 7, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
Drivers who previously paid the renewal fee at the end of the
validity will now pay that fee annually. As discussed above, the
average renewal fee is $55, and will now be paid annually instead of at
the end of the validity period, which results in an average increase
across all validity periods of approximately $29.88 per year. FMCSA
anticipates that one-fifth of the 6,000, or 1,200, will be required to
renew in the first year of the analysis at a cost of $35,860. FMCSA
anticipates that by the fifth year of the analysis period, drivers will
incur additional fees of approximately $179,300 per year (6,000 drivers
x $29.88). Fees are considered transfer payments, or monetary payments
from one group to another that do not affect the total resources
available to society, and therefore do not represent actual costs or
benefits of the rule.
Quantified Costs and Transfers
As shown in the table below, FMCSA estimates that a quantified
portion of the 10-year costs of the rulemaking (excluding transfers) is
approximately $9.5 million discounted at three percent and $8.1 million
discounted at seven percent. quantified annualized impacts range from
$1.4 million discounted at three percent to $1.2 million discounted at
seven percent.
Table 5--Quantified Costs and Transfers
[In 2024 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantified cost Quantified cost Quantified cost
Analysis year Quantified Quantified Total (excluding (discounted at 3 (discounted at 7
state cost driver cost transfers transfers) percent) percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................. $3,383,075 $166,636 $165,000 $3,549,711 $3,446,321 $3,317,487
2................................................. 93,075 333,272 165,000 426,347 401,873 372,388
3................................................. 93,075 499,908 165,000 592,983 542,663 484,050
4................................................. 93,075 666,544 165,000 759,619 674,911 579,509
5................................................. 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 798,995 660,407
6................................................. 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 775,723 617,202
7................................................. 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 753,130 576,825
8................................................. 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 731,194 539,088
9................................................. 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 709,897 503,821
10................................................ 93,075 833,179 165,000 926,254 689,220 470,861
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 930,750 6,665,435 1,650,000 10,886,185 9,523,927 8,121,638
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.................................... .............. .............. .............. ................ 1,355,993 1,156,339
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
FMCSA anticipates that restoring the integrity of non-domiciled CDL
license issuance and limiting non-domiciled CDL issuance to those who
have gone through thorough vetting will enhance the safety of CMV
operations and is likely to result in improved safety outcomes, such as
the reduced frequency and/or severity of crashes or reduced frequency
of violations. Driving history has consistently been shown to be 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 the likelihood of a driver being involved in future crashes
significantly, even after controlling for demographic characteristics
and carrier type.\101\ The report focuses on passenger carrier drivers
with findings suggesting that the following factors are significantly
related to the likelihood of a crash occurrence: driver weight, height,
sex, and employment stability as well as previous driver and vehicle
violations and past crashes. 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.\102\ Similarly, the Commercial Driver Safety Risk Factors
study found that prior moving violations in the last three years were
[[Page 7099]]
associated with increased crash and moving violation risk.\103\
Finally, an FMCSA commissioned report titled Driver Issues: Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Literature Review examined published literature on
commercial motor vehicle safety that utilized MCMIS and CDLIS data, and
concluded that drivers with prior crash involvement were 87 percent
more likely to be involved in a future crash. Results also showed that
drivers who had been cited for reckless driving violations and improper
turn violations were, respectively, 325 percent and 105 percent more
likely to be involved in future crashes.\104\ Together, these findings
underscore a consistent conclusion across studies: a driver's
historical performance, whether measured through crashes, violations,
or observable risky behaviors, provides a robust basis for predicting
future safety outcomes on the road. Given this research, FMCSA finds it
imperative that all drivers able to obtain a CDL credential undergo
thorough vetting procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/7.
\102\ https://truckingresearch.org/2022/10/predicting-truck-crash-involvement-2022-update/.
\103\ Commercial Driver Safety Risk Factors (CDSRF) available
at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/49620.
\104\ Driver Issues: Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Literature
Review available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the thorough vetting process detailed in the IFR,
the U.S. Department of State has developed procedures for increased
screening and vetting of visa applicants seeking to operate CMVs in the
United States under the eligible nonimmigrant statuses in the IFR.\105\
These enhanced screening and vetting procedures help close the gap
between the differences in vetting for U.S.-domiciled and non-domiciled
drivers for these statuses, by ensuring that individuals seeking entry
to the United States under these employment-based nonimmigrant
categories for the purposes of driving a CMV can meet English language
proficiency requirements, show proof that they can properly operate a
CMV, and meet other requirements under the FMCSR. These additional
steps in the vetting and verification process for non-domiciled
individuals ensure that visa applicants in the employment-based
nonimmigrant categories allowed to obtain non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs
under this final rule are subject to sufficient vetting to ensure that
non-domiciled drivers are as safe as practicable before allowing them
to operate CMVs on our roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ While the vetting procedures are an internal U.S.
Department of State document, FMCSA has thoroughly reviewed those
vetting procedures. The agency also coordinated with U.S. Department
of State to provide relevant summaries from that document in the
discussion for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, data limitations in existing crash
reporting requirements do not provide the granular detail required to
estimate quantitatively the risk associated with non-domiciled CDL
holders.
As is discussed in detail in the preamble above, FMCSA has
identified 17 fatal crashes over the course of 2025 in which the CMV
driver responsible for the crash held a non-domiciled CDL that would
likely not have been issued under this final rule. It is important to
note that these crashes do not represent the total universe of crashes,
or the total universe of fatal crashes, caused by non-domiciled CDL
holders. The necessary level of detail regarding the type of CDL held
by the drivers involved in these crashes is not available. For example,
in the FARS data for fatal crashes, only the status of the CDL and
compliance with any required endorsements are recorded. FMCSA could not
query either MCMIS or FARS to ascertain the number of crashes that
would be within scope, and instead independently investigated and
verified significant crash reports through the SDLAs and with the
Police Accident Reports that occurred in 2025 and cross-referenced
driver information from MCMIS to determine that at least 17 fatal
crashes, resulting in 30 fatalities, were caused by the actions of non-
domiciled CDL holders who not would be eligible to hold a non-domiciled
CDL under the regulations adopted in this rule. Therefore, FMCSA is of
the opinion that this rule would reduce the crash risk associated with
such fatal crashes that the benefits of the final rule are likely to
exceed its costs, including costs discussed above that are
unquantified, but that are not expected to be large.
Alternatives
FMCSA considered further limiting non-domiciled CDL issuance to US
citizens and lawful permanent residents. This would have been more
restrictive than the final rule and removed an approximate 6,000 more
CDL holders from the pool of potential CMV drivers. This rule
determines which foreign-domiciled drivers are excepted by aligning
FMCSA's fitness determination with the U.S. Department of State's
enhanced vetting protocols. By limiting eligibility to H-2A, H-2B, and
E-2 nonimmigrant status holders, FMCSA ensures that non-domiciled
drivers undergo rigorous driver history checks that SDLAs are incapable
of performing independently. This ensures all drivers on U.S. roadways
satisfy a comparable standard of background and driver history vetting.
For these reasons, FMCSA determined that the less burdensome final rule
balances safety and costs in a more appropriate way to reach the
objective.
FMCSA also discussed less restrictive, potentially feasible,
alternatives, such as adjustments to SAVE vetting and adjustments to
eligibility for a non-domiciled CDL. However, SAVE is not administered
by FMCSA and the agency does not have control over development or
maintenance of the system. Regarding DACA recipients and other EAD
holders, this rule replaces a complex framework with a ``bright-line''
eligibility standard. SDLAs have demonstrated a pattern of not being
able to 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''), leading to the improper issuance of non-
domiciled CDLs to drivers domiciled in Canada or Mexico who were not
DACA recipients. To restore system integrity, FMCSA determined that the
final rule approach requiring an unexpired foreign passport and an I-94
corresponding to a specific employment-based nonimmigrant status
strikes the right balance between safety and costs. This objective
standard eliminates the burden on SDLAs to interpret complex
immigration codes and ensures that eligibility is restricted to
statuses subject to consular vetting and interagency screening.
B. E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, issued on
January 31, 2025 (90 FR 9065), requires that, for every new regulation
issued by an agency, at least 10 prior regulations be identified for
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently
managed and controlled through a budgeting process. Final
implementation guidance addressing the requirements of E.O. 14192 was
issued by OMB on March 26, 2025. This rule does not meet the definition
of ``rule'' or ``regulation'' as defined in section 5 of E.O. 14192,
because it is issued with respect to an immigration-related function of
the United States per section 5(a) of E.O. 14192.
[[Page 7100]]
C. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined under the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ A major rule means any rule that OMB finds has resulted in
or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; (b) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, Federal,
State, or local government agencies; or (c) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996,\107\ requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the
regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to
minimize any significant economic impact for any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule has the potential to impact States, drivers, and motor
carriers. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended, States are not
small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small
entity in section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, States are not small
governmental jurisdictions under section 601(5) of the RFA, both
because State government is not among the various levels of government
listed in section 601(5), and because, even if this were the case, no
State, including the District of Columbia, has a population of less
than 50,000, which is the criterion to be a small governmental
jurisdiction under section 601(5) of the RFA.
CDL holders are not considered small entities because they do not
meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA.
Specifically, drivers are considered neither a small business under
Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization
under Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this rule would not impact
a substantial number of small entities.
Motor carriers that employ non-domiciled CDL holders as drivers
could be impacted by this rule as these drivers exit the market over
the course of the next five years. There are approximately 785,000 for-
hire and private motor carriers, of which a maximum of 194,000 (or 25
percent) could be impacted by this rulemaking. To be clear, the maximum
of 194,000 is an extreme upper bound estimate based on an assumption
that no single motor carrier employs more than one non-domiciled CDL
holder. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that 25 percent of motor
carriers will be impacted by this rule. FMCSA does not know the number
of small motor carriers that employ non-domiciled CDL holders who will
no longer be eligible for a CDL. Considering that the majority of motor
carriers are considered small based on SBA size standards, it is safe
to assume that the majority of impacted motor carriers would also be
small. As discussed in the regulatory analysis section, FMCSA
anticipates that motor carriers will have some time to adjust to the
change as the drivers will be aware if their license will not be
renewed under the standards set forth in this final rule. In addition,
high turnover and churn rates are well-documented features of the
industry, with many drivers leaving their carrier within 12 months of
being hired, such that the impact of finding a replacement driver on
any specific motor carrier is likely to already be incorporated into
their business model and incurred regardless of this rulemaking. Given
the industry norm regarding movement of drivers, constant need for
hiring, and BLS data indicating a 4.4 percent unemployment rate in the
Transportation and Utilities sector as of November 2025, FMCSA
considers motor carriers to be well equipped to handle any driver
replacement necessitated by this final rule. Further, the five-year
attribution will assist in mitigating any impacts to motor carriers.
For these reasons, FMCSA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857),
FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule
so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate
in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National
Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness
Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each
agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on
actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory
enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for
exercising these rights.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses
actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million
(which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for
inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final
rule would not result in such an expenditure, and the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result, FMCSA discusses the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains information collection requirements under
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
collection of information comprises reporting, recordkeeping,
monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and
description of the information collection, a description of those who
must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual
burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
Title: Non-Domiciled Commercial Driver's License Records.
OMB Control Number: 2126-0087.
Summary of the Information Collection: This information collection
request (ICR) covers the collection and retention of the documentation
provided to a SDLA during the application process for a non-domiciled
CLP or CDL.
Need for Information: The licensed drivers in the United States
deserve reasonable assurances that their fellow motorists are properly
qualified to drive the vehicles they operate. Under
[[Page 7101]]
CMVSA (49 U.S.C. 31301 et seq.), as amended, FMCSA established the CDL
program and the performance standards with which State CDL programs
must comply. The CDL regulations in 49 CFR part 383 prescribe uniform
minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of individuals
who operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and State compliance
with the CDL program is addressed in part 384. In particular, States
that issue non-domiciled CDLs must do so in accordance with sections
383.71, 383.73 and 384.212.
This collection is intended to ensure that States retain all
documents involved in the licensing process for non-domiciled CLP and
CDL holders for a period of no less than two years from the date of
issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise
duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or
upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. If States do not retain this
documentation, FMCSA is severely hindered in its efforts to ensure
compliance with the regulatory requirements because States are unable
to determine accurately the number of non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs they
have issued, or to prove to FMCSA officials that such CLPs and CDLs
were properly issued.
Proposed Use of Information: State officials use the information
collected from non-domiciled CDL applicants to determine whether an
individual is eligible to receive a non-domiciled CDL and to prevent
unqualified, and/or disqualified CLP and CDL holders and applicants
from operating CMVs on the Nation's highways. During State CDL
compliance reviews, FMCSA officials review this information to ensure
that the provisions of the regulations are being carried out. Without
the aforementioned requirements, there would be no uniform control over
driver licensing practices to prevent uncertified and/or disqualified
foreign drivers from being issued a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. Failure
to collect this information would render the regulations unenforceable.
Description of the Respondents: SDLAs issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
Number of Respondents: 51.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Although not all of the 51 jurisdictions identified as
respondents currently issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs, FMCSA has
determined it is appropriate for all possible jurisdictions be
included in this information collection to ensure that it considers
the impacts on all possible jurisdictions and allow for the
possibility that all jurisdictions choose to issue non-domiciled
CLPs and CDLs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Response: Ongoing.
Burden of Response: 6,000 responses. The associated cost burden is
$93,075.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 1,500 hours.
In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), FMCSA published a Notice in
the Federal Register on January 30, 2026, stating that FMCSA will
submit the information collection to OIRA at OMB for approval. (91 FR
XXXX) Directions on submitting comments on the information collection
summarized above can be found in that January 30 notice. FMCSA
addressed comments on the information collection, submitted in response
to the IFR, in section 7.e. of the comment discussion, earlier in this
final rule. There are no changes to the information collection in
response to comments.
OMB approved this information collection in September 2025, and it
is currently set to expire on February 28, 2026.
H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
FMCSA has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles and
criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism, and has determined that it does not
have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 applies to ``policies that
have federalism implications,'' defined as regulations and other
actions that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government'' (Sec. 1(a)). The key concept here is ``substantial direct
effects on the States.'' Section 3(b) of the E.O. provides that
``[n]ational action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States
shall be taken only where there is constitutional and statutory
authority for the action and the national activity is appropriate in
light of the presence of a problem of national significance.''
The rule amends a single aspect of the CDL program authorized by
the CMVSA (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). States have been required to issue
all CDLs in accordance with Federal standards for decades and have been
required to issue all CLPs in accordance with Federal standards since
2011. Moreover, the CDL program does not have preemptive effect; it is
voluntary, and States may withdraw at any time, though doing so will
result in the loss of certain Federal-aid highway funds pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 31314. Because this IFR makes only a modest change to
requirements already imposed on participating States, FMCSA has
determined that it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal and State governments,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Nonetheless, FMCSA recognizes that this rule has an impact on the
States and their commercial driver licensing operations. Most notably,
it requires all States that issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to amend
their existing procedures. The agency continually works with the States
to identify CDL program deficiencies that need to be addressed, and it
was mostly through these APRs that systemic deficiencies with the non-
domiciled CLP and CDL issuance process were identified. Therefore,
States that issue non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs were generally already on
notice prior to publication of the IFR that FMCSA was scrutinizing this
aspect of the CDL program. While FMCSA finds that the rule will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments, in keeping with the spirit of Section 6(b) of E.O. 13132,
FMCSA sought and received input from States after the publication of
the IFR, which was used in developing this final rule.
I. Privacy
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\109\ requires agencies
to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This rule would not require any new collection
of PII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. This
rule does not impact a system of records.
The E-Government Act of 2002,\110\ requires Federal agencies to
conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that
collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable
form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect,
maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule.
Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec.
17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to
evaluate the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting,
storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will
be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary
adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final
adjudication.
[[Page 7102]]
J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
K. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
FMCSA analyzed this final rule pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). FMCSA
believes this final rule will not have a reasonably foreseeable
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action
falls under a published categorical exclusion and is thus excluded from
further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under DOT Order 5610.1D,\111\ Subpart B,
paragraph (e)(6)(s)(7), and (e)(6)(t)(2), which cover regulations
pertaining to requirements for State-issued commercial license
documentation and having the appropriate laws, regulations, programs,
policies, procedures and information systems concerning the
qualification and licensing of persons who apply for a CDL, and persons
who are issued a CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Available at https://www.transportation.gov/mission/dots-procedures-considering-environmental-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 383
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 384
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 as follows:
PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502;
secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767;
sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 of
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141,
126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 23019 of Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429,
777; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
2. Amend Sec. 383.5 by revising paragraph (1)(ii) in the definition
for ``Evidence of lawful immigration status'' to read as follows:
Sec. 383.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Evidence of lawful immigration status for purposes of subpart B of
this part, means:
(1) * * *
(ii) A Form I-94/94A issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security with an unexpired Admit Until Date indicating one of the
following classifications: H-2A-Temporary Agricultural Workers, H-2B-
Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers, or E-2-Treaty Investors.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 383.73 by revising paragraphs (f)(2)(iv), (f)(3)(ii),
(f)(5), (f)(6), and (m)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 383.73 State procedures.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the State
must ensure that the period of validity of the non-domiciled CLP or CDL
does not exceed the Admit Until Date or expiration date on the
applicant's I-94/A or 1 year, whichever is sooner. In any case
(including where the applicant's I-94/A contains no end date or is
marked ``D/S'' to show it is valid for the duration of status) a State
must not issue a non-domiciled CLP or CDL with a period of validity
longer than 1 year.
(3) * * *
(ii) Applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction. (A) Beginning
March 16, 2026, the State must not issue (which includes amending,
correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a
previously issued CLP or CDL), transfer, renew, or upgrade a non-
domiciled CLP or CDL unless, at the time of the transaction, the
applicant provides evidence of lawful immigration status as defined
under Sec. 383.5. Applicants for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL who do not
provide evidence of lawful immigration status as required under Sec.
383.71(f)(3)(i)(B) are not eligible for a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(B) States must comply with the document verification requirements
for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction set forth in Sec.
383.73(m)(2) before issuing (which includes amending, correcting,
reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued
CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP
or CDL.
(C) States are prohibited from granting non-domiciled CLP or CDL
privileges on a temporary or interim basis pending review and
validation of an applicant's evidence of lawful immigration status.
* * * * *
(5) Downgrade. If after issuing (which includes amending,
correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a
previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or upgrading a
non-domiciled CLP or CDL, the State receives 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 category specified
in paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition of Evidence of lawful
immigration status in Sec. 383.5 of this part, the State must initiate
established State procedures for downgrading the non-domiciled CLP or
CDL. The downgrade must be completed and recorded on the CDLIS driver
record within 30 days of the State's receipt of such information. As
used in this paragraph, the term ``downgrade'' means the State's
removal of the CLP or CDL privilege from the driver's license, as set
forth in paragraph (4) the definition of CDL downgrade in Sec. 383.5.
(6) Non-domiciled CDL renewal. States must require every non-
domiciled CLP or CDL issuance (which includes amending, correcting,
reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued
CLP or CDL), transfer, renewal, or upgrade be conducted in-person only
and must not permit issuance, transfer, renewal, or upgrade by mail or
electronic means.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) Document verification and retention for applicants domiciled in
a foreign jurisdiction. States must verify evidence of lawful
immigration status for applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction
before initial issuance and before any subsequent issuance (which
includes amending, correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise
duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transfer, renewal, or
upgrade of a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(i) For offices with only one staff member, all documents must be
processed or verified by a supervisor before issuing (which includes
amending, correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise duplicating
a previously issued CLP or CDL),
[[Page 7103]]
transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(ii) In reviewing the evidence of lawful immigration status an
applicant domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction (except an applicant
domiciled in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa
or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the State must
query the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system
(administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). If the
SAVE final response, including additional verification if needed, does
not confirm the applicant's claim to be in lawful immigration status in
a category specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the definition of evidence
of lawful immigration status in Sec. 383.5 of this part, the State
must not issue (which includes amend, correct, reprint, reinstating, or
otherwise duplicate a previously issued CLP or CDL), transfer, renew,
or upgrade a non-domiciled CLP or CDL, and must initiate downgrade
procedures in accordance with paragraph (f)(5) of this section if the
applicant holds an unexpired non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
(iii) The State must retain copies of all documents involved in the
licensing process, including documents provided by the applicant to
prove lawful immigration status and documents showing the results of
any SAVE query to verify an applicant's lawful immigration status, and
a supervisor must verify them within one business day of issuing (which
includes amending, correcting, reprinting, or otherwise duplicating a
previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, reinstating, or
upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL. The State must retain the
documents for no less than 2 years from the date of issuing (which
includes amending, correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise
duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or
upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
* * * * *
PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM
0
4. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301, et seq., and 31502; secs.
103 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1753, 1767; sec.
32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524 of Pub. L.
114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
5. Amend Sec. 384.212 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 384.212 Domicile requirement.
(a) * * *
(1) For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the State
must:
(i) Comply with the document verification and retention
requirements set forth in Sec. 383.73(m)(2) before issuing (which
includes amending, correcting, reprinting, reinstating, or otherwise
duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL), transferring, renewing, or
upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL; and
(ii) Provide copies of all documents involved in the licensing
process to FMCSA within 48 hours after request.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 383.301 by revising paragraph (q) to read as follows:
Sec. 384.301 Substantial compliance-general requirements.
* * * * *
(q) A State must come into substantial compliance with the
requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter
related to non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs, effective March 16, 2026, prior
to issuing (which includes amending, correcting, reprinting,
reinstating, or otherwise duplicating a previously issued CLP or CDL),
transferring, renewing, or upgrading a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Derek Barrs,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2026-02965 Filed 2-11-26; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P