(a) General rule. (1) No person shall operate a CMV unless such person has taken and passed knowledge and driving skills tests for a CLP or CDL that meet the Federal standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of this part for the CMV that person operates or expects to operate.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may legally operate a CMV unless such person possesses a CDL which meets the standards contained in subpart J of this part, issued by his/her State or jurisdiction of domicile.
(b) Exception. (1) If a CMV operator is not domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction that the Administrator has determined tests drivers and issues CDLs in accordance with, or under standards similar to, the standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of this part,
1 the person may obtain a Non-domiciled CLP or Non-domiciled CDL from a State that does comply with the testing and licensing standards contained in such subparts F, G, and H of this part, so long as that person meets the requirements of § 383.71(f).
1 Effective December 29, 1988, the Administrator determined that commercial driver's licenses issued by Canadian Provinces and Territories in conformity with the Canadian National Safety Code are in accordance with the standards of this part. Effective November 21, 1991, and as amended on January 19, 2017, the Administrator determined that the new Licencias Federales de Conductor issued by the United Mexican States are in accordance with the standards of this part. Therefore, under the single license provision of § 383.21, a driver holding a commercial driver's license issued under the Canadian National Safety Code or a new Licencia Federal de Conductor issued by Mexico is prohibited from obtaining a non-domiciled CDL, or any other type of driver's license, from a State or other jurisdiction in the United States.
(2) If an individual is domiciled in a State while that State is prohibited from issuing CDLs in accordance with § 384.405 of this subchapter, that individual is eligible to obtain a Non-domiciled CLP or Non-domiciled CDL from any State that elects to issue a Non-domiciled CDL and which complies with the testing and licensing standards contained in subparts F, G, and H of this part, so long as that person meets the requirements of § 383.71(f).
(3) If an individual possesses a CLP, as defined in § 383.5, the individual is authorized to operate a class of CMV as provided by the CLP in accordance with § 383.25.
[76 FR 26878, May 9, 2011, as amended at 83 FR 22875, May 17, 2018; 83 FR 48975, Sept. 28, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Under these regulations, a carrier must ensure that prospective drivers have a commercial license, have a working knowledge of English, and possess the training or experience to safely operate a commercial vehicle.”
North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, 50 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The federal regulations, paraphrased in Question 5 and referenced hereafter, are all drawn from Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations: (a) 49 C.F.R. § 383.23 (1992), which requires the drivers of commercial vehicles to possess a commercial driver's license; (b) 49 C.”
Bermudez v. Martinez Trucking, 796 N.E.2d 1074 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “(c) *** State [CDLPs] *** shall be considered valid [CDLs] ***, if the following minimum conditions are met: (1) The [CDLP] holder is at all time accompanied by the holder of a valid CDL” ( 49 C.F.R. § 383.23 (1998)). “383.23 — Interpretations The holder of a valid CDL must be…”
Kapche v. City of San Antonio, 176 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1999).
“49 C.F.R. § 383.23 (a)(2) (1994). To obtain a CDL, federal law required that he meet certain physical qualifications, including the absence of insulin-dependent diabetes.”
Vargas v. State, 852 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. App. 1993).
“See 49 C.F.R. § 383.23 (1992) (commercial driver’s license); 16 Tex.”
United States v. Milovanovic, 627 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2010).
“§§ 31305 , 31308; 49 C.F.R. § 383.23 . Federal regulations allow a state to authorize a third party to administer the driving skill portion of the test as long as the tests “are the same as those which would otherwise be given by the State.”
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Peña, 17 F.3d 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “49 CFR § 383.23 (b). The implication of this regulatory scheme is that when a foreign country’s CDL standards are “in accordance with, or similar to,” the federal standards, CDLs issued by that country will be valid in America.”
State v. Rodolfo Sanchez Mora (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 3× “49 C.F.R. § 383.23 (a)(2). There is an exception for individuals living in a U.”
Bermudez v. Martinez Trucking (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 3× “" Plaintiff also cites 49 C.F.R. §383.23 (1998) and its accompanying interpretation, which state: "§ 383.”
Toral v. Hawk (E.D. Tex. 2025).
“denied) (affirming negligence per se instruction regarding 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.23 , 395.8, 390.11, 383.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.