Start CDL Inc., a commercial truck driving school based in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, is challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) decision to remove it from the federal training provider registry, arguing that the agency relied on roadside English-proficiency violations recorded after drivers completed their training.
In a complaint filed on October 2, the school alleges that the FMCSA improperly used those subsequent violations to justify the emergency shutdown of its federally regulated training operations. The lawsuit, however, also exposes inconsistencies in the supporting documentation, including mismatched driver lists, inspection reports involving different individuals and a removal notice containing findings against another training provider.
The 236-page complaint and accompanying exhibits leave several questions unanswered. A spreadsheet identifying six drivers names Star CDL Training LLC rather than Start CDL Inc., while the attached roadside inspection reports cover 10 different drivers. A scanned version of the removal notice also identifies Punjabi School of CDL Inc. in findings concerning deficiencies and the need for immediate safety action.
The school filed its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation, the FMCSA and agency Administrator Derek D. Barrs in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is seeking reinstatement and relief from the agency’s decision.
The action follows an August 31 FMCSA notice that immediately removed Start CDL from the federal training provider registry alongside more than 100 other schools. The notice prohibited the company from conducting entry-level driver training, accepting new trainees, certifying course completions or uploading training certifications.
The decision comes as federal regulators intensify their scrutiny of commercial driver training providers amid broader efforts to address deficiencies and strengthen enforcement of commercial driver’s license (CDL) training requirements.
FMCSA points to English-proficiency violations
The FMCSA justified its decision by stating that six trainees certified by Start CDL subsequently received English-language-proficiency violations during roadside inspections.
Based on those findings, the agency concluded that the drivers lacked the required English proficiency when the school submitted their training certifications. It characterized the alleged deficiencies as material and determined that the provider had demonstrated willful disregard for applicable federal requirements.
The agency invoked both an immediate public safety concern and willful disregard as grounds for the emergency removal.
English proficiency has long been a federal qualification requirement for commercial drivers. Enforcement guidance included in the lawsuit’s exhibits describes the restoration of out-of-service treatment for English-proficiency violations in June 2025.
Several roadside inspection reports attached to the complaint document specific communication difficulties and incorrect responses to highway-sign questions. In Arkansas, an officer recorded problems involving questions about cargo, documents and air pressure. A separate report from Missouri documented four incorrect highway-sign responses.
These reports provide factual support for the officers’ findings during the inspections. However, they do not independently establish when the drivers completed their training or whether they possessed the required English proficiency when their certifications were submitted to the federal registry.
That distinction is central to Start CDL’s legal challenge: the school disputes the assumption that subsequent violations necessarily demonstrate deficiencies in its training or certification practices at an earlier date.
Conflicting records raise questions about the agency’s evidence
The documentation accompanying the removal materials contains discrepancies that complicate the connection between the cited roadside violations and Start CDL.
A spreadsheet lists six drivers under Star CDL Training LLC, whose provider identifiers differ from Start CDL’s identifier in the federal registry. None of the six names appears among the 10 unique drivers identified in the attached roadside inspection reports, and the report numbers also differ.
Start CDL’s exhibits include training agreements linking the school to three individuals covered by the inspection reports. However, the documents do not provide a reconciled list of the six drivers cited in the agency’s materials, together with their training completion dates and certification upload records.
The FMCSA’s notice describes the inspection reports as a representative sample. Nevertheless, the available packet does not explain how those reports correspond to the six drivers listed in the spreadsheet.
Another discrepancy concerns the identity of the training provider named in the notice. One scanned version identifies Punjabi School of CDL Inc. in findings addressing deficiencies, immediate safety necessity and willful disregard, while another version identifies Start CDL.
These inconsistencies raise questions about how the FMCSA assembled and matched the evidence used to support its decision. The lawsuit’s exhibits do not establish whether the differences resulted from attachment errors, mistakes in the underlying data or another explanation.
Disputed timeline leaves questions about driver assessments
Start CDL argues that roadside violations recorded after training cannot, on their own, establish that its instruction was deficient or that the drivers lacked the required proficiency when they were certified. The school also challenges the FMCSA’s interpretation of training providers’ obligations under federal entry-level driver training rules.
However, the chronology presented in the complaint and administrative petition contains discrepancies of its own.
The school’s filings describe the cited inspections as occurring between May and August 2026. The attached roadside reports, by contrast, span July 2025 through May 2026.
The records also contain an unresolved issue involving driver Viacheslav Iroltuev. According to the complaint, Iroltuev passed Start CDL’s English assessment with a score of 84% in February 2026, before a roadside inspection on May 13.
Yet both copies of the certificate included in the exhibits carry a date of July 2, 2026. The documents do not establish whether that date reflects the certificate’s issuance rather than the date of the original assessment.
The school’s owner, Vasyl Kushnir, raises another point in the complaint. He says a Department of Transportation inspection on July 23 prompted the school to make process corrections but did not identify any English-proficiency deficiencies. The exhibits, however, do not include a completed inspection report confirming his account.
These outstanding questions leave the precise relationship between the school’s training records, the drivers’ assessments and the subsequent roadside findings unclear.
Administrative appeal remained unresolved when lawsuit was filed
Start CDL says it submitted a petition for administrative review and requested an emergency stay on September 10. According to the complaint, neither request had been decided by the time the school filed its federal lawsuit on October 2.
The latest court docket supplied for review lists no subsequent government response or judicial ruling. The administrative stay request included in the exhibits is addressed to the FMCSA and is not a separately filed motion seeking a federal injunction.
Neither the FMCSA nor Start CDL attorney Anton Kaminsky responded to requests for comment by publication time.
The dispute highlights the consequences of emergency enforcement actions for commercial driver training providers, which cannot operate within the scope of federally required entry-level training while removed from the registry. It also puts the evidentiary link between roadside safety violations and a training school’s compliance practices at the center of the case.
For now, the available records leave important questions unresolved, and the lawsuit’s allegations have not been adjudicated by the court.
