Stakeholders across the commercial trucking sector remain sharply divided over an FMCSA rulemaking that would permanently codify English language proficiency requirements as an out-of-service violation, balancing highway safety goals against concerns over subjective roadside testing and inflation risks.
- Regulatory Alignment: The FMCSA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks to officially codify English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards as an out-of-service condition to match existing Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance criteria.
- Industry Support: Major organizations like the American Trucking Associations and OOIDA strongly back the rule to ensure drivers can read critical road signs and communicate with emergency responders.
- Concerns Over Subjectivity: Opposing groups, such as the Ascendant Trucking Industry Association, caution that subjective roadside evaluations and vague criteria risk discriminatory enforcement and unwarranted driver terminations.
- Supply Chain and Capacity Impacts: Stakeholders disagree on the broader economic fallout, with some warning of compressed freight capacity and rising consumer prices, while others argue noncompliant carriers should face strict penalties.
A proposed federal rule to formally codify English language proficiency requirements as an out-of-service violation has spurred division among trucking associations, training schools, and advocacy groups.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in August published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to align federal safety regulations with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria.
The comment period, which closed Friday, Oct. 9, drew 2,190 submissions. While major industry groups view the measure as an important safety upgrade, stakeholders warn that subjective enforcement and a lack of standardized testing could exacerbate labor shortages and supply chain pressures.
Industry giants and safety advocates rally behind the rule
Major trade organizations strongly backed the proposal, emphasizing that communication on the road is a life-or-death matter.
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) praised the FMCSA’s leadership, noting that uniform enforcement is essential to protect the traveling public.
"ATA strongly supports FMCSA's proposal and has long advocated for ensuring uniform, predictable, and consistent enforcement of ELP as an OOS violation," wrote Brenna Lyles, ATA's vice president of safety policy.
Similarly, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) argued that the rule is critical to removing unqualified drivers from highways.
"English Language Proficiency isn't optional. It's essential. That's why codifying the ELP requirement as an OOS violation is so important," OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer wrote in OOIDA's comments, noting that since roadside enforcement surged in mid-2025, tens of thousands of violations have been issued.
The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) and the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) echoed these sentiments. TCA Senior Vice President David Heller emphasized that communication barriers compromise roadside inspections and create unnecessary safety risks. Andrew Poliakoff, executive director of CVTA, added that predictable enforcement helps training schools properly inform prospective students before they invest in education.
Regional groups, including the Texas Trucking Association (TXTA), the Trucking Association Executives Council (TAEC), and the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), also supported the rule while suggesting technical clarifications regarding border commercial zones and safety measurement systems.
Concern over subjectivity and supply chain impacts
The Ascendant Trucking Industry Association (ATIA), representing immigrant-owned motor carriers and professional drivers, urged caution, arguing that the rule punishes drivers before properly standardizing the requirements.
Yi Zhang, president of ATIA, warned that a vague mandate left to the discretion of roadside inspectors invites civil rights concerns and arbitrary enforcement. "A rule that punishes before it defines, and removes before it trains, will damage highway safety rather than protect it," Zhang stated.
ATA, too, called for a standardized national assessment framework to curb roadside subjectivity.
ATIA contended that many immigrant drivers struggle with expressive English under pressure rather than an inability to understand basic road signs, noting that mass removal of drivers acts as an "inflation policy" that contracts freight capacity.
The association requested a 12-month transition period, standardized training curricula, and clear definitions centered around functional safety communication rather than fluency.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), representing the third-party logistics and freight broker industry, said in its comments that it supports the agency's overarching goal of achieving predictable enforcement and consistent driver qualification standards, but cautioned that out-of-service orders create heavy operational ripples across the supply chain.
"Clear and consistent standards are important to both highway safety and the efficient movement of freight. Motor carriers, brokers, shippers, and drivers operate across multiple jurisdictions and rely on a shared understanding of requirements," wrote TIA Vice President of Government Affairs Daniel Hoff. "Greater uniformity helps entities understand their responsibilities, support compliance, and reduce the risk of inconsistent enforcement and avoidable supply chain disruptions.
Furthermore, TIA raised significant concerns regarding Safety Measurement System (SMS) data. Because brokers do not have access to the information required to assess a driver's language proficiency, TIA urged the FMCSA to explicitly clarify that SMS percentiles and ELP violations logged under the Driver Fitness BASIC do not establish a legal "standard of care" or liability for brokers in negligent selection lawsuits.
To prevent unnecessary supply chain disruptions and confusion, TIA requested that the FMCSA provide clear, nationally consistent guidance for all regulated entities and supply-chain participants before the final rule takes effect.
