[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-298628-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-298628-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","draft-public-comment-restoring-integrity-to-the-issuance-of-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses","Draft Public Comment - Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses","","Draft public comment responding to an interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses,” which changes requirements for issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs. The author discusses the rule’s stated goals, arguing that focusing on lawful presence rather than employment authorization does not reliably screen accident-causing drivers. The comment further challenges the agency’s reliance on the APA good-cause exception, contending that the claimed emergencies do not justify bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/draft-public-comment-restoring-integrity-to-the-issuance-of-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses/298628/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/draft-public-comment-restoring-integrity-to-the-issuance-of-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses/298628.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Finn","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",21,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What rule is the author commenting on?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The author comments on the interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses,” which implements new requirements for issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What does the author say about the rule’s focus on lawful presence?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The author argues the rule’s change to require an employment authorization document not to be sufficient does not provide evidence that would properly screen drivers who would cause accidents.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How does the author challenge the agency’s use of the APA good-cause exception?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The author contends that courts require good-cause to be narrowly construed and limited to emergencies or situations where delay would result in real harm, and that the asserted harms do not meet that standard.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},298628,1789761576,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},34359740700684,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1f400023980c374ae676?_k=1777273430885731487","Shailey Park (Mussey)  \nLAW 533: Administrative Law Professor Poirier  \nDraft Public Comment  \nI. Introduction  \nI am writing to offer commentary on the interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses,” which implements new requirements for issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs. The five accidents, which this rule refers to on a couple of occasions, made national news, with the narrative primarily being that the harm would have been avoided but not for the non-citizen being granted a CDL/CLP. I, like most citizens, was heartbroken for the families who lost loved ones in these accidents. Like many of my fellow Americans, these accidents came with it the desire for some understanding, some way to prevent this from happening again. While I commend the administration for recognizing this desire for certainty in what seems to be a very uncertain and unfair situation, I do not think the interim rule proposed by the administration is the best way to achieve these goals. Primarily, as a student of administrative law, I am deeply concerned with the method the administration has chosen to achieve its goal.  \nII. Goals of the Rule  \nDuring 2025, there have been multiple accidents involving non-domiciled CDL drivers that resulted in death and serious injury. The administration recognizes that only two of the drivers were improperly issued a CDL; the other three were issued correctly in the current regulations but would be estopped under the interim final rule proposed by the department. However, only some of the drivers were unlawfully present, and most of the drivers were granted a CDL correctly because they held valid Employment authorization documents. The interim rule would modify the regulations to require an employment authorization document alone to be insufficient as a basis for issuing a non-domiciled CDL, primarily because the new regulation would focus on lawful presence rather than permission to work.  \nWhile, the administration is correct in asserting that the new regulations would have estopped the specific individuals involved in the collisions from having the CDL and thus would have prevented the wrecks, no evidence focusing on legal status, rather than employment authorization, will properly screen drivers out who would cause accidents such as those referred to by the administration. The Administration argues that the rule would fix the issue because under current rules, a state obtains a CDL applicant’s 10-year driving history from states where the applicant was previously licensed. For obvious reasons, this is extremely difficult or impossible for applicant’s whose driving records are primarily in another country. However, this issue is the same for any individual whose primary residence is in a different country, regardless of legal status. Thus, the rule falsely conflates the risk of unlawful aliens having CDLS with the risk of lawful immigrants, when in actuality, they are probably similar.  \nIII. Methodology with the Rule  \nShailey Park (Mussey)  \nLAW 533: Administrative Law Professor Poirier  \nDraft Public Comment  \nUnder the APA, there is a strong presumption that in order for an informal rule to be valid, it must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment prior to a rule becoming effective. However, an agency can bypass this process if the agency “for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553. However, the courts have explicitly stated that the good cause exception should be narrowly construed and limited only to emergency situations or times when a delay would result in real harm. These are two separate arguments: first, that the rulemaking process itself can be avoided due to good cause, and second, that the waiting period should be subverted because delay w","cbCaiqppwFskO7sU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqppwFskO7sU","pdf",112581,"English","# I. Introduction\n# II. Goals of the Rule\n# III. Methodology with the Rule\n## A. The good cause put forth by the administration is insufficient to support a subversion from the normal notice and comment requirements.\n### 1. Issues with State compliance with the law.\n### 2. Lack of vetting allows those with “malicious intent” to obtain access.","[{\"question\":\"What rule is the author commenting on?\",\"answer\":\"The author comments on the interim final rule titled “Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses,” which implements new requirements for issuing non-domiciled CLPs or CDLs.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the author say about the rule’s focus on lawful presence?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues the rule’s change to require an employment authorization document not to be sufficient does not provide evidence that would properly screen drivers who would cause accidents.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author challenge the agency’s use of the APA good-cause exception?\",\"answer\":\"The author contends that courts require good-cause to be narrowly construed and limited to emergencies or situations where delay would result in real harm, and that the asserted harms do not meet that standard.\"}]","Draft Public Comment - Restoring Integrity to the Issuance of Non-Domiciled Commercial Drivers Licenses | PDF",13]