The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an administrative stay pending further legal review of an interim final rule announced by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in September to limit the ability of non-domiciled workers to obtain commercial driver’s licenses.
The Nov. 10 ruling on a case filed by a DACA recipient and an asylum seeker, who were blocked from getting non-domiciled CDLs, allows states to continue issuing the licenses as well as commercial learner’s permits (CLPs). Duffy responded Friday by announcing an emergency action to “drastically restrict” the eligibility for non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs. The U.S. Department of Transportation also clarified states subject to a corrective action plan from the FMCSA must continue to adhere to the final rule.
A nationwide audit by FMCSA of these non-domiciled commercial drivers uncovered systemic non-compliance by several states, “the worst and most egregious” in California. FMCSA said 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs in the state were improperly issued. The agency ordered California as well as Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Washington to immediately pause the issuance of the non-domiciled CDLs, identify all non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations and revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal regulations.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is among the organizations supporting the FMCSA interim rule while the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees are in favor of last week’s court stay.
A bin of THC edible products from Virginia stores is displayed by the state attorney general. While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. (Photo by Graham Moomaw/Virginia Mercury)
A provision significantly limiting the sale of intoxicating hemp products made its way into legislation to reopen the federal government just a day before the Senate approved the bill. Its inclusion follows years of pressure from states and the marijuana industry.
While states continue to expand access to legal marijuana, a separate market of hemp-derived intoxicants has blossomed. The products, from drinks to gummies, are sold in gas stations and smoke shops. Critics say some companies have exploited a legal loophole from 2018 to manufacture products that get people high — without the safety regulations and taxes facing the legal marijuana industry.
That’s led dozens of states to limit or ban certain intoxicating hemp products. Most states also have pushed for federal changes, though some farm states worry the pending federal bill — which the House is expected to vote on as soon as today — goes too far.
A bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general recently urged Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp, arguing that the underregulated industry threatens public health and undermines law enforcement.
Texas lawmakers this year approved a strict ban on intoxicating hemp, but that measure was vetoed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The governor raised constitutional concerns because federal law allowed the products, but he then issued an executive order increasing state agency regulations, including age restrictions.
This summer, Florida regulators seized tens of thousands of packages of hemp products that failed to meet new child protection standards, including child-resistant packaging, marketing restrictions and enhanced labeling rules. In Tallahassee, the state Senate approved a ban on hemp-derived THC products, including beverages, but that measure died in the state House. A similar effort last year was vetoed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said it would harm small businesses.
Last month, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation strengthening state enforcement of its ban on intoxicating hemp products. Similarly, Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine declared an emergency last month in an executive order banning intoxicating hemp products for 90 days while lawmakers debate potential legislation.
Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of the cannabis plant. The 39 state attorneys general argue manufacturers are manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC that can be more intoxicating than marijuana.
“In this way, legal, nonintoxicating hemp is used to make Frankenstein THC products that get adults high and harm and even kill children,” the attorneys general wrote.
Hemp-derived gummies and beverages are sold without consistent age restrictions or labeling regulations and oftentimes resemble candy. During his announcement, DeWine showcased brightly packaged intoxicating hemp products that resembled name-brand candy products.
“Certainly, it’s easy to see how a child will confuse this product with real candy and eat a few gummy bears and ingest enough THC to require hospitalization,” he said, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.
Though it has faced mounting restrictions in the states, the hemp industry says the federal change poses an existential threat.
On Monday, the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said the legislation pending in Congress would wipe out 95% of the nation’s $28.4 billion hemp industry.
“The language will force patients, seniors and veterans who rely on hemp products to break federal criminal law to acquire them,” the trade group posted online.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the organization, said the industry has been pushing for regulation rather than outright prohibition. He acknowledged the problem of bad actors, but said those can be addressed with strong regulations like those that exist in Kentucky and Minnesota.
“These are good examples of states that have put together robust regulations. But we need to see that at the federal level, and we’ve been supporting legislation to do that for the last seven years,” he told Stateline.
Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator, said he included the hemp measure in the bill to close an unintended legal loophole and that the measure would still allow farmers to grow hemp for fiber, oil and drug trials.
But fellow Kentucky Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said the move would “eradicate the hemp industry” and could override some state laws. Paul offered an amendment to remove the hemp provision but failed.
The hemp loophole
Hemp derives from the same cannabis species as marijuana, but is legally defined by its lower levels of THC, the psychoactive component of the plant.
While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, Congress sanctioned hemp in the 2018 farm bill to allow an agricultural market for hemp-based textiles, animal feeds and human wellness products centered on cannabidiol, or CBD, products. The farm bill allowed cultivation of hemp plants with a THC concentration of 0.3% or lower by dry weight.
But that threshold has become essentially meaningless, said Katharine Neill Harris, a fellow in drug policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
That’s because manufacturers have found ways to convert legal hemp plants into potent forms of synthetic marijuana. Aside from the potential of creating very strong products, she said the process requires the addition of solvents and other ingredients that raise many safety questions.
“With marijuana products, you can get some very potent products,” she said. “But the psychoactive components to THC are naturally occurring. It naturally occurs in that natural amount. You’re not doing a whole bunch of manipulation to increase the potency of the product and adding ingredients.”
Harris has tracked the growing number of states regulating the industry: Six states and the District of Columbia now ban all consumable hemp products with any amount of THC. In 24 states, intoxicating hemp products are permitted, though 15 of those states allow only low-potency products.
But even states with strict regulations still must contend with legal online markets.
“There’s a big part of that activity that you can’t control as a state when something is federally legal, and so that’s one thing that they’re asking for is federal leadership on this issue,” she said. “I think there is a big demand for some sort of industry standards.”
If approved by Congress and signed by the president, as expected, the new hemp legislation will likely have uneven impacts across the states.
For example, the change likely won’t dramatically alter the legal landscape in Alaska, where the regulators have banned all intoxicating hemp products. Marijuana businesses complain those products are still being sold, despite the ban.
But in a state like Nebraska, where lawmakers have been unsuccessful in limiting intoxicating hemp, the change could drastically alter both consumer access and business sales, depending on enforcement.
On Monday, Paul said the federal legislation would wipe away hemp regulations in many states, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine and Utah.
“The bill before us nullifies all these state laws,” he said.
‘Running with knives’
The hemp industry has argued that a lot of the opposition to it stems from marijuana businesses looking to protect their own markets, noting that campaigns for restrictions are often more organized in states that have legalized marijuana.
Everybody is using hemp as a cover to basically sell intoxicating drugs.
– Andrew Mullins, president and executive director of the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association
But producers of intoxicating hemp are looking for market access without the associated safety regulations and tax structures states have created for marijuana, argued Chris Lindsey, the director of state advocacy and public policy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, an organization representing the legal marijuana industry.
“They want to have some kind of regulatory framework that’s somehow different than the one that states already have [for marijuana],” he said.
His organization cheered the Senate’s efforts “to address the dangerous proliferation of unregulated synthetic THC products.”
Lindsey said hemp-derived products can contain contaminants, including pesticides. Many hemp products can be sourced cheaply overseas, he said, and with lax oversight, there is no system to recall tainted products here.
“To me, that’s like running with knives,” he told Stateline.
The Missouri Cannabis Trade Association recently purchased hemp products from gas stations and smoke shops from across the state to test them in an effort to show they need more regulation.
In its “Missouri Hemp Hoax Report,” the organization said independent testing found 53 of the 55 products purchased were actually intoxicating marijuana well above the legal limit of THC. Third-party lab results also showed some of the products contained pesticides and heavy metals.
Those results underscore that the products should face the same rules as legal marijuana does, said Andrew Mullins, president and executive director of the cannabis trade association. State law requires marijuana to be grown and manufactured in Missouri, mandates lab testing and allows for sales only at licensed dispensaries.
“In my mind, if it’s marijuana, which most of this is, then it should be regulated like marijuana,” Mullins said.
He said calling the unregulated products “hemp” is akin to someone selling whiskey and calling it corn: “Everybody is using hemp as a cover to basically sell intoxicating drugs.”
Mullins acknowledged the confusion among policymakers and law enforcement. But he said there are already laws — including those against trafficking marijuana without a license — that could help address the issue.
Catherine Hanaway, a Republican who was sworn in as Missouri’s new attorney general in September, has vowed action on unregulated hemp products, particularly THC beverages that are booming in popularity.
“Our focus is on the health and safety of Missourians,” James Lawson, her deputy chief of staff, told the Missouri Independent last month. “This is an unregulated industry that makes untested, unknown substances available to the public without any oversight, including children where we think it’s particularly detrimental.”
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Michael Gableman in Dane County Circuit Court on Thursday, June 23 | Screenshot via Wisconsin Eye
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman could be forced to pay $48,192 to cover the costs of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s investigation into him for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election.
That review of the election, which did not turn up any proof of wrongdoing, has resulted in 10 counts of misconduct being filed against the former judge. Late last month, he agreed to have his law license suspended for three years because of the charges.
Last week the OLR filed a statement arguing that the case against Gableman should follow Supreme Court precedent, which would mean the costs incurred by the OLR investigator and independent referee overseeing the case should be paid by the lawyer under investigation. The referee issued a recommendation stating that there was no reason the case shouldn’t follow the existing precedent.
Both the responsibility for paying the bill and the ultimate punishment will be decided by the state Supreme Court.
Also last week, Gableman filed a motion in his case last week seeking the recusal of liberal justices Susan Crawford and Rebecca Dallet.
Gableman’s filing notes that Crawford called him a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist” and accused him of leading a “sham” investigation of the 2020 election during her campaign earlier this year.
His filing notes comments Dallet made in 2017 after she had announced her campaign for the Court but before Gableman had decided not to run for another term. Dallet accused Gableman of not recusing himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest, called his 2008 campaign “one of the most unethical” in state history and said he was a “rubber stamp for his political allies.”
Gableman argues that these comments create the appearance of bias and that the justices shouldn’t weigh in on his punishment. If they were to recuse, the Court’s conservatives would hold a 3-2 majority — though Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the Court’s liberals in the 2020 election cases it decided.
Antitrust experts say the new administration’s hands-off approach to tech regulation could gain the president the loyalty of tech executives in the short term, but could hurt the competitiveness of the American tech sector in the long run. (Photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)
Leaders in the tech industry have enjoyed more freedom to make business moves and an overall deregulatory attitude under the Trump administration, but antitrust experts say the administration’s hands-off approach could end up hurting American companies’ ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.
Antitrust laws protect fair competition, ensuring that no one company controls an entire market, price gouges for their products or controls the cost of labor. In the short term, a lax approach to these laws could mean the American people may see more big tech companies merge or acquire smaller competitors.
In the long-term, it means the already small group of people running the country’s most powerful tech firms would gain even more control of the market, Illinois-based legislative attorney Maaria Mozaffar said.
“Traditionally, innovation in tech is inspired by how we can solve problems. And if there’s fewer people that are not invested in solving problems, but more invested in making profit, the innovation’s intent is going to be different,” Mozaffar said. “We’re going to get a repetition of the same models and the same products that are not actually solving problems, but just a faster way to make money.”
Trump’s approach to the FTC
Though Democrats and Republicans may have had different “philosophies” for antitrust rules in the past, it’s unusual to see wide swings in attitudes from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), said New Jersey-based antitrust attorney Nadine Jones.
The independent regulatory agency, which protects consumer interests and anti-competitive business practices like price-fixing, illegal mergers and monopolization, has historically run with little influence from the president, Jones said, though it technically is housed under the executive branch.
But recent moves by the Trump administration suggest he wants a much more hands-on approach, Jones said. Before taking office, Trump chose Andrew Ferguson as the FTC chairman, replacing Lina Khan, who fought Big Tech overreach during her tenure. Together with antitrust specialist Mark Meador, the pair have focused on issues of “censorship” by big tech, arguing that tech platforms have unfairly restricted conservative views.
Earlier this year, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the FTC, a decision that was recently supported by the Supreme Court, and set a precedent that gives more executive branch control over the independent agency.
And in August, Trump revoked a Biden-era executive order that called for enforcement of antitrust laws to promote more competition within industries and keep companies from monopolizing.
All of it points to a central theme of deregulation for the tech industry, with a goal of growing the industry with as little government involvement as possible. Trump’s alignments with big tech leaders during the 2024 election were probably the first clue that he’d handle the FTC differently, Jones said.
“I think if I were to try to read the tea leaves in past administrations, currying favor with the president was of less importance,” Jones said. “The DOJ, antitrust division, the assistant attorney general of the division was who you wanted to curry favor with, or the chair of the FTC. Whether or not you’re smiling nicely with the president was, I think, of less significance, because they typically left these technical areas of law to the experts.”
For California-based tech founder and author Mark Weinstein, The FTC holds a critical role in upholding democracy and free market capitalism. Trump’s attempts to fill the commission with Republicans is a threat to both concepts, he said.
“It’s concerning, even when he appoints people who are inclined to be strong antitrust enforcers, because they’re still appointed by the president,” Weinstein said. “There’s a quid-pro-quo that’s clearly inferred there.”
Weinstein thinks that before his second term, Trump realized the immense power that information giants like Meta and Apple had in controlling content and shaping public opinion. Deregulatory policies could curry favor with the leaders of Big Tech, and help him control information, Weinstein said.
“If Meta bans him from their platform, then they have all the power,” he said. “And he wants to have all the power.”
With influence over large tech platforms, Mozaffar said, Trump is more capable of spreading his ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion and past “censorship” of conservatives.
“When you see the tech giants behind Donald Trump, people think it’s just about making them richer,” Mozaffar said. “It’s really [Trump’s] ability to have control over how those tech platforms do their business, as far as content control.”
What does this mean for American tech companies?
So far, the FTC has been continuing antitrust lawsuits from previous administrations against some tech giants, like Google, which is currently awaiting a decision on a trial alleging it monopolized its search engine, after being found liable in a separate advertising-related trial in 2024.
The commission is also awaiting an outcome on a six-week trial in a case it brought against Meta, parent of Facebook, alleging in 2020 — under direction from the first Trump administration — that the company created a monopoly by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp.
Trump-appointed FTC commissioner Meador said at NYU’s Law Forum last month he believes most Americans support the scrutiny into big tech companies.
“I don’t think this moment is a flash in the pan,” Meador said during the event. “I think that it is growing out of deeper sentiments and concerns about economic fairness and economic regulation and policy at a very broad level. And this is just one manifestation of it. I think that’s a generational thing. I think it’s only going to amplify. So, I don’t think it’s going away.”
But the current Trump administration has only brought one antitrust case against a tech merger, when it sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise from buying Juniper Networks for $14 billion earlier this year.
Trump is likely feeling out his options, Mozaffar said — he could fall in line with more traditional Republican action, aiming to enforce antitrust laws to promote competition. But he could also be using a framework FTC Chair Ferguson outlined, which criticises tech platform’s content moderation rules, as a way to rein in platforms that the GOP has long accused of censoring conservative viewpoints.
Mozaffar said she’s watching how the administration handles both horizontal and vertical mergers. Horizontal mergers, when two similar companies merge to create one company, are likely more familiar to the average American. But vertical mergers, which involve partnerships of companies across several layers of a supply chain, have the potential to have truly expansive power.
One possible example is a recent $100 billion deal between AI giant OpenAI and computing powerhouse Nvidia. Nvidia’s investment into OpenAI includes the ability to build out its data center capacity and computing chip needs, tying the companies’ growth and success together. The deal immediately raised antitrust concerns.
“How much control do you have over every piece of the process? To the point where there’s no innovation in product and competition leading up to that final product?” Mozaffar said. “And then how much are you controlling as far as protecting labor rights and best practices, because you can always cut corners to be able to make sure that the final product serves the profit that it’s supposed to serve.”
Amid conflicting federal antitrust cases, Jones advised corporate lawyers to pay attention to their state’s antitrust laws, as state attorneys general are some of the biggest enforcers of antitrust law in the country.
She said although letting tech businesses operate unfettered may meet some of Trump’s short-term goals, a lack of enforcement will ultimately make the United States a less competitive, less innovative place.
“Antitrust philosophy believes the only way to get genuine benefits for consumers, to get people to race to get to the finish line of your dollars — and you choosing them with your dollars — is to compete with each other,” Jones said. “And then we, the consumers, enjoy the fruits of those competitions.”
This story was originally produced by News From The States, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Some school districts and school bus companies in search of drivers may need to look even harder after a federal rule outlaws the issuing of CDLs to non-U.S. citizens.
Many U.S. states are pausing or suspending the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) in response to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s Sept. 26 announcement of an emergency action to drastically restrict who is eligible for a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permits (CLPs) and CDLs.
Editor’s — This article has been updated to include more comments from states that responded to questions the initial publication. STN will provide further updates as more states respond.
According to the announcement, the rule — effective immediately — comes in response to an ongoing nationwide audit by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and “a recent series of horrific, fatal crashes caused by non-domiciled drivers.”
The rule impacts nearly 200,000 current non-domiciled CDL holders and 20,000 CLP holders. FMCSA estimates about 6,000 drivers will qualify for non-domiciled credentials annually under the new restrictions.
It was unknown at this report how many of those are school bus drivers.
Duffy’s announcement indicates the audit uncovered “a catastrophic pattern of states issuing licenses illegally to foreign drivers, as well as the fact that even if the current regulatory framework is followed, it can fail.
“The confluence of these two factors has created an imminent hazard on America’s roadways that must be fixed,” a press release states.
Moving forward, non-citizens are ineligible for a non-domiciled CDL unless they meet a much stricter set of rules, including obtaining an employment-based visa and undergoing a mandatory federal immigration status check using the SAVE system.
SAVE is an online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and naturalized/acquired U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.
“What our team has discovered should disturb and anger every American,” said Duffy, noting that CDLs are being issued to “dangerous foreign drivers – oftentimes illegally. This is a direct threat to the safety of every family on the road, and I won’t stand for it,” he continued.
FMCSA’s nationwide audit of non-domiciled CDLs uncovered systemic non-compliance across several states, the announcement noted, adding “the worst and most egregious in California. Due to weak oversight, insufficient training and programming errors, the agency found a large number of non-domiciled CDLs were issued to ineligible drivers and those whose licenses were valid long after their lawful presence in the U.S. expired.”
The audit indicates more than 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs reviewed in California were improperly issued. U.S. DOT cited one case in which the state issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with endorsements to drive a passenger bus and a school bus that remained valid for months after his legal presence in the country expired.
As a result, Duffy also announced direct enforcement action against California, indicating the state must immediately pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, identify all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations, and revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal requirements.
Duffy gave California 30 days to come into compliance or FMCSA will withhold federal highway funds, starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.
Jonathan Groveman, an information officer with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, told School Transportation News the agency is currently reviewing the federal government’s issued guidance within the federal government’s 30-day period.
Duffy indicated FMCSA’s findings are in addition to at least five fatal crashes occurring since January involving non-domiciled CDL holders, prompting what it calls Duffy’s urgent action to “combat the direct threat to national security and the hazard to public safety.”
Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington were also identified as states with licensing patterns not consistent with federal regulations.
The action limits individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to foreign individuals in lawful status in the U.S. in certain employment-based, non-immigrant categories, certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and individuals domiciled in a state that is prohibited from issuing CLPs or CDLs because FMCSA has decertified the state’s CDL program.
It also requires:
• Non-citizen applicants — except for lawful permanent residents — to provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired Form I-94/94A (Arrival/Departure Record) indicating one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories, specifically H2-B, H2-A, and E-2 visas, at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action de-fined in the regulation.
• State drivers licensing agencies (SDLA) to query the SAVE system, which is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of provided documents and information.
• SDLAs retain copies of the application documents for at least two years.
• The expiration date for any non-domiciled CLP or CDL to match the expiration date of the Form I-94/94A or to expire in one year, whichever is sooner.
• The applicant to be present in person at each renewal.
• 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.
STN reached out to all 50 state agencies that issue CDLs, with several state websites announcing changes.
The Colorado DMV provided a statement to STN that effective Sept. 29 it paused all commercial drivers issuances and renewals of term-limited or non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs.
A spokesperson for the Georgia Department of Driver Services told STN the state is complying with the new federal ruling by only issuing CDLs to permanent residents that have acceptable visas.
In New Mexico, the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) announced it also paused its issuance and renewal of CDLs and CLPs to certain non-domiciled foreign individuals as of Sept. 29 to comply with the emergency interim final rules issued by the FMCSA.
The MVD statement reads that the agency’s pause in CDL and CPL issuance and renewal affects foreign nationals relying on an employment zuthorization card to substantiate their authorization to work in the U.S. and it will continue to issue CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who present a foreign passport with an approved I-94 Arrival/Departure record.
“New Mexico law complies with all federal requirements for the issuance of CDLs and CLPs to non-domiciled individuals,” according to the statement. “Currently, 204 CDLs and CLPs have been issued to non-domiciled individuals in New Mexico. 2
Legislation introduced in 2022 on behalf of MVD added requirements for issuances of CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who demonstrate lawful status in the U.S. Individuals who seek a new or renewed non-domiciled CDL or CLP based on an employment authorization card will not be able to complete their transaction through MVD or its partner offices at this time.’
Regarding school bus drivers, Megan Gleason, public information officer for the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue, noted, “There is a specific endorsement — an S (school bus) endorsement — on commercial driver’s licenses that authorizes drivers to operate a school bus transporting students to and from school or school-sponsored activities.
“When applied to a commercial learner’s permit, the endorsement serves solely for testing purposes, permitting the driver to complete the required skills examination to qualify for the endorsement on their commercial driver’s license,” she said.
Current data on active and total endorsements in New Mexico, indicates there are four active non-domicile CDLs, a total of eight non-domicile CDLs since 2022, one active non-domicile CLPs, and a total of nine CLPs since 2022.
Gleason said the same requirement for a foreign passport with an I-94 for an H2/H2A/E2 visa remains for those drivers at the time of renewal.
A Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson told STN all currently issued CDLs, including those to school bus drivers with appropriate endorsements, will remain valid and only the issuance of new CDLs and commercial learners permits, or CLPs, has been halted.
An additional statement from the agency, which issues CDLs and CLPs in Texas, noted that non-citizens include refugees, asylum seekers, and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
“Customers with a pending issuance will not be allowed to continue any written or skills testing until the services for non-domicile CDL/CLP are reinstated” DPS added.
Other states changes include:
• The Arizona Department of Transportation said in a statement, “it is aware of the new federal guidelines and has instituted them for all new CDL issuances as well as renewals, which includes those seeking CDLs with passenger and school bus endorsements. There are approximately 125,000 CDLs in Arizona, and of those 800 are non-domiciled CDLs.” Though information related to school bus drivers was not known.
• Indiana noted its Bureau of Motor Vehicles has ceased processing all applications for non-domiciled CDL/CLPs, including applications for new, amended, duplicated, transferred, renewed, or upgraded non-domiciled CDL/CLPs. Affected non-domiciled CDL/CLP customers may submit an application at a BMV license branch to apply for or downgrade to a non-CDL driver’s license should they so choose.
• Maryland paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver products until further notice. This includes issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs, adding ‘we apologize for the inconvenience.’
• Massachusetts also apologetically indicated it has paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver credentials until further notice, including issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs.
• Missouri suspended all new, renewal and duplicate nondomiciled CDL and CLP issuance until further notice, including a suspension of knowledge and skills testing for any in-state or out-of-state test applicant who would be restricted to a non-domiciled CDL or CLP.
• Oregon DMV is no longer issuing limited-term (non-domiciled) CDLs and CLPs until further notice.
• Utah has paused issuing non-domiciled CDLs.
• The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Office of Public Affairs issued a statement. “Due to the recent interim final rule issued by the FMCSA, like many states across the country, WisDOT Division of Motor Vehicles has paused its non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs issuance program to ensure compliance with the interim final rule. Wisconsin already had many of the new rule’s regulations in place. As we work to resolve any remaining issues, we will communicate the status of our program to impacted individuals on our website and at our DMV service centers.”
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed an emergency action to continue enforcing engine emissions regulations because it says federal government efforts to undo them could result in the sale of vehicles that are not certified to any standard.
As California’s lawsuit continues against the Trump administration, challenging the presidential executive order in January directing federal agencies to terminate state emissions waivers and a resulting revocation of those waivers through the Congressional Review Act (CRA) signed into law in June, CARB said it wants to provide regulatory certainty and flexibility to manufacturers. For school buses and trucks, manufacturers could meet the Omnibus Low-NOx regulation adopted in 2020 or the previous regulation that met the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency levels set in 2010. The CRA this spring revoked three waivers, one of which allowed CARB to set a new level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr of NOx.
The public had five business days from Monday’s announcement to weigh in on CARB’s intent to enact its Emergency Vehicle Emissions Regulations by filing comments with the state’s Office of Administrative Law.
The emergency regulations do not address the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which the CRA also revoked an EPA waiver for.
“The amendments would confirm that, until a court resolves the uncertainty created by the federal government’s actions, certain antecedent regulations (displaced by Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus) remain operative (as previously adopted) with the caveat that CARB may enforce Advanced Clean Cars II and Omnibus, to the extent permitted by law, in the event a court of law holds invalid the resolution purporting to disapprove those waivers,” the proposal reads.
In other words, manufacturers would be able to continue certifying engines under either the earlier-adopted emissions standards or the more stringent standards.
CARB noted that most engine and vehicle manufacturers have already planned on or achieved compliance with the more stringent emissions requirements. But CARB also warned that manufacturers choosing to certify to previous emissions levels assume the risk of having engines out of compliance with regulations, should current legal cases brought against the Trump administration go in California’s favor.
Cummins spokeswoman Drew Blair told School Transportation News that it was premature to respond in detail to CARB’s proposal, as it was not final. But she added Cummins is following the issue closely.
“Cummins is focused on delivering products with the power and performance our customers need to get their jobs done, while also meeting emissions requirements,” she commented. “We also will continue to advocate for national standards to bring clarity to our business and customers and ensure efficient and affordable products are available to power their needs.”
Earlier this month, a group of vehicle manufacturers led by Daimler Truck North America, the parent company to Thomas Built Buses, filed a suit against CARB, claiming the agency would need to re-enact previous legislation before it could enforce earlier emissions regulations.
“In the event the vehicle manufacturer’s claims were deemed correct … then CARB must take immediate action to maintain a stable vehicle market in the state and prevent the sale of vehicles into the state that would not be certified to either set of standards …,” CARB writes. “… Otherwise, in light of these unprecedented circumstances, there may remain questions — for the first time since CARB’s program began decades ago — as to whether any California standard is in effect.”
A Daimler Truck spokesperson said Wednesday the company could not comment on CARB’s proposal.
International, the parent to IC Bus, signed onto the Daimler Truck lawsuit. An International spokesman declined comment because the litigation is ongoing.
Meanwhile, CARB said Tuesday 23 percent of new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in 2024 were zero emissions, more than double the minimum statewide requirement. The data is based on 30,026 zero-emission trucks, buses and vans reported to CARB by manufacturers. School buses are included in the reporting.
It was the fourth year in a row that ZEV sales increased. More than 57,000 ZEVs have been sold in California since 2021.
While the immediate future remains uncertain on federal emissions regulations and funding, school bus OEMs say they are prepared with varied solutions going forward to meet the needs of every customer, no matter the fuel or where they operate.
That was the key takeaway from a July 13 panel at STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada. The OEM representatives on stage were Francisco Lagunas, general manager of North America Bus for Cummins; Jim Crowcroft, general sales manager for Thomas Built Buses; Katie Stok, product marketing and commercial readiness for IC Bus; Frank Girardot, the PR, marketing and government relations leader at RIDE; and Brad Beauchamp, EV product segment leader for Blue Bird. The session attempted to provide some clarity to the ever-changing funding and fuel landscape.
“The only certainty is that everything is so uncertain,” Lagunas punctuated during the “The Engines & Emissions Pathway Forward” session, facilitated by School Transportation News Editor-in-Chief Ryan Gray.
Lagunas added that Cummins is seeing an increased demand in diesel, confirming that the new B6.7 octane engine will be available in January. Though, he noted that investments in electric batteries and drive systems have not slowed down. Accelera, the zero-emissions division of Cummins, is a member of a joint venture with Daimler Truck North America and Paccar to create a U.S.-based battery cell manufacturer, Amplify Cell Technologies.
Crowcroft agreed, adding that one year has made a huge difference in industry focus. Several of the same panelists sat on a similar panel last year at STN EXPO, where he said EV was the focus of the industry.
“Now, it’s been a complete 180 [degree turn] this year,” he shared, adding that the industry has spent too much time talking about EVs and not enough time talking about the other offerings.
This year has been about being diverse, being nimble and ready to adapt to change when necessary. “What is the most practical plan?” he asked, noting that diesel technology has advanced and EV fatigue is setting in.
He shared that Thomas is not telling customers what fuel or energy type to use but instead empowering them to choose what works best for their fleets. Noting the Trump administration’s relaxation of a federal push for zero-emission vehicles, Crowcroft said there has been a sigh of relief from customers for not feeling like they have to purchase electric school buses.
He noted that with all the changes and technologies, it puts more pressure on the OEMs to keep up. He said Thomas is committed to investing in quality, citing that ahead of the 2027 GHG Phase 3 regulations targeting lower NOx (the EPA currently has it on hold pending a proposal to remove GHG regulations), school districts might want to pre-buy within the next 12 months to avoid cost increases tied to the new technology.
Beauchamp said Blue Bird has always focused on a fuel-agnostic path for its customers, and the company plans on continuing with propane being a low emission source. While he said Blue Bird had yet to see EV order cancellations as of last month, he anticipates those orders will flatten. Regardless, Blue Bird is committed to EV, noting an $80 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy last year (and double that amount in company matching funds) to build a new Type D electric school bus plant.
He noted that while the supply chain has improved coming out of COVID-19, “We’re not out of the words on it, yet,” he said.
Stok noted that the industry conversation should not be about low costs but having a supplier that delivers good quality on time. She noted that, like the other OEMs, EV is still very much part of the IC Bus product portfolio, as is diesel. However, she said the change in federal regulations will usher in changing order preferences across the industry, noting that IC is reintroducing its own gasoline school bus with the upcoming Cummins engine.
For the remainder of 2025, she said IC Bus is on track to have the highest production output from its Tulsa, Oklahoma plant. Communication is key right now, she added, and the manufacturer is working with its dealer network to listen to the customers and continue to improve.
Meanwhile, Girardot said it’s too early to predict what the future holds but BYD electric school bus company RIDE believes it holds a promise to furthering the deployment of EVs and enhancing the capabilities of vehicle to grid technology. He noted that V2G holds value and is something that communities need to consider. He highlighted success stories of V2G, such as in the Oakland Unified School District in California.
Girardot added that technician training on electric school buses is a must.
Additionally, RIDE announced a range extension on its blade battery, which took home the Best Green Technology, as judged by attendees at the STN EXPO West Trade Show Innovation Awards. Girardot added RIDE, too, received a competitive grant to expand its manufacturing facility.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus child safety restraint systems tied to updates made to FMVSS 213.
NHTSA proposed on May 30 amendments to Child Restraint System Standards FMVSS 213, FMVSS 213a and FMVSS 213b to exempt school bus child safety restraint systems from the requirement to comply with side-impact protection requirements defined in FMVSS 213a. Charlie Vits, a child passenger safety technician and consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said during STN EXPO West in Reno, Nevada, that NHTSA issued a letter of non-enforcement for school bus CSRS, allowing for the continued use of the safety restraints designed for school buses.
On July 2, NHTSA stated that it “recognizes that because the date on which the comment period closes is the same as the compliance date for FMVSS No. 213a, it will not be possible to publish a final rule prior to the current compliance date. NHTSA is concerned that the regulatory uncertainty likely to arise for the period of time in between the June 30 compliance date and any published final rule will lead to a decrease in overall levels of CRS safety as fewer CRS options are available for the public,” it stated.
It noted that in the public interest, NHTSA is exercising its discretion to temporarily pause enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a for CRSs produced on or after June 30, 2025, and until the date of publication of any rule finalizing the May 30 proposal.
“NHTSA emphasizes, however, that under 49 U.S.C. 30115(a), a manufacturer may not certify to a standard if, in exercising reasonable care, the manufacturer has reason to know that the certification is false or misleading in a material respect. As such, even while the enforcement of the applicability of FMVSS No. 213a is paused, if a manufacturer continues to certify to the standard, the manufacturer must have a good faith basis that the CRS meets the standard,” NHTSA added.
Meanwhile, in addition to delaying the side-impact protection compliance date for all other child restraint systems from June 30, 2025, to Dec. 5, 2026, the proposal provides that the Child Restraint Air Bag Interaction 12-month-old (CRABI)-12MO test dummy will not be used to test forward-facing CRSs.
NHTSA proposes to amend FMVSS No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” and FMVSS No. 213b, child restraint systems: Mandatory applicability beginning Dec. 5, 2026,” to exclude school bus CRSs from the requirements and to provide attachments for connection to the vehicle’s LATCH child restraint anchorage system. These anchorages are only required in school buses that are 10,000 pounds GVWR and less.
Vits, a child passenger safety technician and a consultant to school bus seating manufacturer IMMI, said NHTSA has always been supportive of school bus child restraint systems since the 2003 introduction of IMMI’s SafeGuard STAR as well as the Besi Pro Tech and HSM PCR.
As currently designed for school transportation, NHTSA wants to assure their continued future availability and use, Vits said, adding the purpose of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on the Federal Register last week is to remove three important but non-applicable regulatory details impacting their design and function.
“Unless these detailed requirements are removed from FMVSS 213, 213a and 213b as currently written, the production of these school bus child restraints will most likely cease on June 30, 2025, when the three requirements are to become effective,” he said.
These child restraint systems will no longer be compliant with the federal child restraint standards unless they are redesigned and constructed as a more costly and less usable product, Vits added.
Denise Donaldson, a certified passenger safety instructor and editor and publisher of Safe Ride News, noted the recent proposals are essentially housekeeping in nature.
“The more exciting development occurred in 2023, when NHTSA issued a final rule to create a product category specifically for school bus child restraint systems,” she explained. “Although these products were previously considered compliant with FMVSS 213 under the category harness, the new category’s description gives manufacturers greater freedom to innovate when designing products made exclusively for school bus use.”
From left: Denise Donaldson, the editor and publisher of Safe Ride News Publications, and Sue Shutrump, at the time the supervisor of OT/PT services for Trumbull County Educational Service Center in Ohio, discuss the importance of CSRS during STN EXPO Reno on July 14, 2024. (Photo courtesy of Vincent Rios Creative.)
When that rule was issued, Donaldson said incongruities with school bus CRSs remained in the regulatory text.
“Since these products install using a seatback mount, they needed to be made exempt from the standard’s requirement that car seats have a LATCH system for installation,” she added. “They should be exempt from the upcoming side-impact standard since the test in that standard replicates a passenger vehicle environment, substantially different from a school bus. These are loose ends, so the proposals are important for addressing these issues and satisfying the requests of petitioners, including manufacturers.”
Vits noted the NPRM cleans up regulatory language from current rulings that school bus child restraint systems could not meet due to the nature of their design.
Meeting the requirements would require costly redesigns resulting in a less usable school bus child restraint, he said, adding, “The intent of NHTSA is not to change anything that impacts the concept of the current school bus child restraint.”
In 2014, NHTSA first published proposed rulemaking to add side-impact crash protection to all types of child seats except harnesses, otherwise known as school bus vests, Vits said.
“IMMI commented on the NPRM that although it supported side-impact protection requirements in child restraints, school bus child restraints were similar to the excluded harnesses and not capable of meeting those requirements,” he added. “The nature of the web-based, no-shell design for these child restraints does not provide the necessary structure to meet these requirements. Therefore, school bus child restraint systems should also be excluded from meeting the side- impact protection requirements.”
NHTSA published the final ruling on side impact requirements as FMVSS 213a on June 30, 2022. But, Vits noted, NHTSA had yet to formally define school bus child restraints as a type of child restraint, so they could not exclude it from side impact requirements.
With FMVSS 213b in December 2023, NHTSA formally defined it as a type of child restraint but omitted excluding it from the requirements of FMVSS 213a. He said the oversight was to have been corrected in a to-be-published ruling last Oct. 9 but again was missed.
IMMI submitted a Petition for Rulemaking on Jan. 19 that formally requested NHTSA change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the FMVSS 213a requirements, resulting in last week’s NPRM. IMMI also found the requirement to include LATCH and tether connectors and their associated labeling remained as a requirement for school bus child restraints, Vits said.
“IMMI submitted another Petition for Rulemaking on May 19, 2025, formally requesting NHTSA to change the regulations to exclude school bus child restraints from the LATCH connector and associated labeling requirements of FMVSS 213 and 213b,” he said, adding the change was also included in the NPRM.
Several other regulatory product developments impacted passenger vehicle child seat manufacturers and caused concern they would not be able to meet the FMVSS 213a effective date of June 30, 2025. In response to the petitions of these manufacturers,Vits said NHTSA published the NPRM to propose delaying the effective date of FMVSS 213a to Dec. 5, 2026, the same effective date of FMVSS 213b.
The proposals “are what is needed to set the standard’s school bus CRS category on the correct footing, allowing current CSRs models to be compliant and opening the door for future innovation,” Donaldson, who favors the proposals, pointed out.
“School bus child restraints have served the industry well for the past 22 years,” she added. “They have provided critical protection to pre-K children in numerous school bus crashes over the years. They need to continue to be available to school transportation for years to come.”
While Donaldson expressed confidence that NHTSA will make the necessary changes to FMVSS 213a and 213b, Vits commented that unless NHTSA acts immediately according to the proposed ruling, manufacturers will need to cease production.
“Although the comment period closes on June 30, NHTSA wants to hear from those in the industry as soon as possible due to the urgency to turn this NPRM into a final ruling,” he added. “They want to know that transporters of pre-K children want these school bus child restraints now and in the future.”
In providing input by June 30, Vits noted “comments should be short and simple, beginning with a statement in support of the May 30, 2025 NPRM, FR Doc. 2025-09750. Then, briefly share your positive experiences with these type of child restraints, especially if they have provided protection to any of your children in crashes.
“Express your need to have them continue in production without adding requirements to provide side impact protection and LATCH anchorage connectors.”
Donaldson noted in creating the school bus CRS category in 2023, NHTSA clearly signaled its support of this type of child safety restraint system.
“I feel confident that a rule that finalizes these important proposals, which are necessary to make that category viable, will be forthcoming,” she added.
Ronna Weber, executive director for the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, said the National Congress on School Transportation’s Resolution No. 6, Request for Clarification on FMVSS 213a and 213b Final Rules, approved by state delegates last month underscores the industry’s commitment to safely transporting preschool and special needs children, a sizeable industry component.
The resolution noted that any regulations should continue to ensure children requiring securement based on age and weight are carried safely and securely, CRSs are attached to the seat back to ensure a secure fit for the child. It is believed approximately 310,000 to 335,000 CRSs designed for school buses are on the road today.
NHTSA also published a total of 16 NPRMs on May 30, most of which are considered deregulatory by cleaning up obsolete ruling text related to requirements for vehicles produced more than 10 years ago. Rules pertaining to school buses include: FMVSS 207: Seating Systems, FMVSS 210: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS 222: School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection
As no new requirements are being added, there is little merit in commenting on them, commented Charlie Vits, a certified passenger safety technician and consultant to IMMI.
Donaldson said those in the school transportation sector should be assured that their school-bus-only CSRS and any that they purchase while the NPRM is going through the rulemaking process continue to be safe and legal.
“These regulatory changes will not necessitate though would allow future redesign of these products,” she said. “However, another aspect of the 2023 final rule that applies to any forward-facing child restraint, including school-bus-only CSRS, requires labels and instructions to state a minimum child weight for riding forward facing of 26.5 pounds.
“The compliance deadline for this requirement is June 30, 2025. For school-bus-only CSRS, this means that a rider must be at least 26.5 pounds, which is slightly higher than the pre-rule-change minimum weight of 25 pounds for most models.”
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the letter of non-compliance. Taylor Ekbatani contributed to this report.
Login
