FMCSA, New York ready to rumble over non-domiciled CDL rules

While New York’s brief makes that the key issue, it is somewhat less emphasized by FMCSA in its filing. 

Following the April decision by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to withhold approximately $73 million in federal funds as a result of the dispute with New York, the state quickly filed suit in the Second Circuit challenging the action.

While the core of the federal government’s argument was known in April when the action was taken by the DOT, the state responded that the action was “political payback.”

What does the rule say?

It is in the brief filed by the state that some meat is put on New York’s objections. Its key argument is that the action by the DOT is enforcing a rule that does not exist.

In a December 2025 “preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance,” according to the state’s brief, FMCSA asserts that a review of New York practices had “uncovered evidence of systemic policy, procedural and programming errors” in a sampling of New York licenses. 

“In particular, FMCSA observed that 101 of those licenses included expiration dates that exceeded the period of validity shown on the drivers’ lawful presence documents presented at the time of license issuance,” New York said in its brief. “Citing no authority, FMCSA asserted that (New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles) was required to ‘make the period of validity of the non-domiciled commercial learning permits or CDL less than or equal to the period of validity of the driver’s lawful presence document(s).”

But there is nothing in the law to require that, according to the state. 

“FMCSA points to no regulatory text that affirmatively required the State to match license expiration dates with the lawful-presence documentation provided with drivers’ CDL applications,” New York says in its brief. “The principal provision that FMCSA relies upon (which it says can be found in 49 C.F.R. § 384.212) does not address expiration dates. Nor does any other regulatory provision incorporated therein.”

Implicit or explicit

New York sums up the FMCSA argument in its brief. “FMCSA nevertheless claims that this supposed expiration-matching rule was implicit in its prior regulations because a contrary interpretation would render ‘meaningless’ and ‘inconsequential’ the regulatory provisions that require CDL and CLP applicants to verify their lawful presence at the time of license issuance.” But earlier Supreme Court precedents on funding requirements must be made “clearly,” with New York putting that word in italics.

Citing another part of federal law, § 383.73(f)(2), New York argues that “state procedures” for the issuance of CDLs for domiciled and non-domiciled persons, and by extension their expiration date, can not be any different. 

“Notably, the requirement that a CDL issued by a state be valid for no more than eight years… presumptively applies to both nondomiciled and domiciled licenses alike,” the state says.

The state does not argue anywhere that the CDLs in question did not exceed the length of a recipient’s legal window for staying in the U.S. Its argument is that it isn’t part of the law.

But the DOT’s brief goes right to that issue in its brief. 

When the agency conducted an audit of New York’s program, it says in its brief filed last week, it found that “more than half turned out to have been issued with expiration dates well past the period for which the license-holders could demonstrate, at the point they applied for the CDLs, that they were lawfully present in the United States. In several cases, CDLs were issued for seven or eight years longer than the applicants’ demonstrated periods of lawful presence.”

DOT’s brief says it was told by New York that the CDL’s had “overlong expiration dates” because its system doesn’t check how long a holder of a license is allowed to stay in the U.S.

No cooperation

Another charge in the DOT brief is that New York refused to work with FMCSA to get to a point where the federal agency would withdraw its determination that the state was out of compliance with federal law.

FMCSA’s argument in its brief about what the law says is in its summary of an “informal conference” between the agency and New York. 

At that meeting in February, according to the brief, “FMCSA underscored that because States could only issue non-domiciled CDLs to applicants who presented unexpired proof of lawful presence, the credentials the DMV had issued with expiration dates exceeding the validity of the documentation presented were improperly issued.” It says it laid out a series of steps New York needed to take to get into compliance, which New York refused to adopt.

The Final Determination of Substantial Noncompliance followed in April, which led to the withdrawal of the federal funds and New York’s intention to fight the action in federal court.

The FMCSA brief is far less specific in what the law says regarding an alignment between the expiration of a CDL and how many months or years a CDL or CLP holder is allowed to be in the U.S. 

In its summary of its argument, it seems to suggest that the state’s non-cooperation was more of an issue.

“The DMV based its refusal on its disagreement with FMCSA’s interpretation of the provision limiting the maximum duration of non-domiciled CDLs,” the state writes. “That disagreement is largely beside the point, because the DMV was obligated to work with FMCSA toward resolution of the issues identified.”

But then it immediately adds that “the DMV misreads the governing federal regulations, which link issuance of a CDL to lawful presence.”

Hageman bill on the issue

Although one part of the battle between New York and FMCSA is not in dispute–that the agency audited the Empire State’s records–Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman last week introduced a bill mandating such inspections. 

She dubbed her bill the Strengthening Transportation Oversight and Preventing (STOP) Improper Licensing Act. 

“This bill requires federal safety regulators to audit states issuing non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and unqualified drivers,” a prepared statement released by Hageman’s office said.

Hageman’s release included testimonials on the legislation by a series of key Washington trucking associations: the American Trucking Associations, the Truckload Carriers Association, and the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association.

The general consensus in Washington is that with the midterm elections close enough that their November 4 date is starting to be discussed in the number of days or weeks away rather than months, no significant legislation is likely to be passed in this Congress. 

Hageman is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Wyoming, seeking to fill the seat of retiring Sen. Cynthia Lummis, and she is expected to coast to victory.

More articles by John Kingston

Likely BMO swan song shows trucking credit strengthening

A newcomer to Roadcheck driver violations top 5: speaking English

One man paints challenging outlook for brokers’ insurance