# Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDL) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-02965 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** February 13, 2026 - **Citation:** 91 FR 7044 ## Text 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; CDLRulemaking@dot.gov. 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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 § 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 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 § 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 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 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, 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 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 demonstrate [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2026-02965. Public record. Not legal advice.