A Preliminary Review of English Proficiency 

and Safe Commercial Vehicle Operation 

February 2011
FOREWORD 

The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, 

injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA, an agency of more than 1,000 

employees, has offices in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FMCSA’s 

programs contribute to ensuring safety in motor carrier operations through enforcement of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), targeting of high-risk carriers and 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, improvements in safety information systems and 

CMV technologies, strengthening of CMV equipment and operating standards, and efforts to 

increase safety awareness. 

§391.11 of the FMCSR outlines the general qualifications for CMV drivers, including a 

requirement that they be proficient in English: 

...a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he can read and speak the 

English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand 

highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official 

inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records ... §391.11(b)(2) 

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a preliminary research study designed to 

review English proficiency in relation to safe CMV operation. The study endeavored to learn: 

• The tasks CMV drivers perform that require language comprehension in the interest of 

safety. 

• The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and 

highway departments, and highway safety advocacy groups believe that English language 

proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV drivers. 

• How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning English-language 

proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be 

assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during 

roadside inspections. 

• Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner. 

This study took a three-pronged approach of examining available data, observing commercial 

motor vehicle drivers during their regular schedules, and interviewing a wide range of 

stakeholders. 
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or the use thereof. 

The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade 

or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object 

of this report. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FMCSA-RRR-11-006 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle 

A Preliminary Review of English Proficiency and Safe Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Operation 

5. Report Date 

July 2008 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Julie L. Nixon, Courtney Stevenson, Michelle Yeh, and Ingrid Bartinique 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Motor Carrier Safety Division 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FMCSA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: 

16. Abstract 

Under sponsorship from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

performed a preliminary research study designed to review English proficiency in relation to safe CMV operation. 

The study endeavored to learn: 1) The tasks CMV drivers perform that require language comprehension in the 

interest of safety. 2) The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier industry 

groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and highway departments, and 

highway safety advocacy groups believe that English language proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of 

trucks and buses by CMV drivers. 3) How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning 

English-language proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be assessed in 

the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during roadside inspections. 4) Whether 

stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently written, can be applied in a fair and 

uniform manner. 

This study took a three-pronged approach of examining available data, observing commercial motor vehicle drivers 

during their regular schedules, and interviewing a wide range of stakeholders. 

17. Key Words 

Commercial motor vehicle, crash avoidance, English 

proficiency, safety, motor carrier, passenger carrier, 

hazmat, driver, CVSA, out-of-service criteria, roadside 

inspection, Commercial Drivers License, OOS, LEP, 

CDL, 391.11(b)(2), safety performance rate, BASIC, 

compliance, civil rights 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

113 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
ii 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

Table of APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in Inches 25.4 Millimeters mm 

ft Feet 0.305 Meters m 

yd Yards 0.914 Meters m 

mi Miles 1.61 Kilometers km 

 AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 

yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 

ac Acres 0.405 Hectares ha 

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 

VOLUME 1000 L shall be shown in m3 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 Milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 Liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

 MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 Grams g 

lb pounds 0.454 Kilograms kg 

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or “metric ton”) Mg (or “t”) 

TEMPERATURE Temperature is in exact degrees 

°F Fahrenheit 5 × (F-32) ÷ 9 

or (F-32) ÷ 1.8 

Celsius °C 

 ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 Lux lx 

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 

Force and Pressure or Stress 

lbf poundforce 4.45 Newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 Kilopascals kPa 

Table of APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

Mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

M meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

 AREA 

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L Liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

 MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

Mg (or “t”) megagrams (or “metric ton”) 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE Temperature is in exact degrees 

°C Celsius 1.8c + 32 Fahrenheit °F 

 ILLUMINATION 

lx Lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl 

Force & Pressure Or Stress 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2 

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003, Section 508-accessible version September 2009) 
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ........................................................................ V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... VIII

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................1

1.1.1 Institutional Oversight of the Motor Carrier Industry ....................................... 1

1.1.2 Evolution of the English-Language-Proficiency Regulation for CMV Drivers 2

1.1.3 CVSA North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria ............................... 6

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................9

2. METHODS AND RESULTS .............................................................................................11

2.1 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................11

2.1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Initial Data Review ......................................................................................... 12

2.1.3 Associations between Regulatory Compliance and Safety Performance ....... 17

2.1.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 23

2.2 OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................................23

2.2.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2 Approach/Methodology .................................................................................. 23

2.2.3 Task-Analysis Results ..................................................................................... 29

2.2.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 36

2.3 INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................................37

2.3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 37

2.3.2 Approach/Methodology .................................................................................. 37

2.3.3 Phase I Interviews: Federal Agencies, Associations, and Interest Groups ..... 41

2.3.4 Phase II Interviews: State Agencies ................................................................ 51

2.4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................54

2.4.1 Findings in each of the three areas (signage, licensure, and enforcement) are 

discussed below. ......................................................................................................... 54

2.4.2 Phase III Interviews: Motor Carriers and Drivers ........................................... 83
iv 

LIST OF FIGURES (AND FORMULAS) 

Figure 1. Inspections reporting LEP non-OOS and OOS violations, 2002–2007 .........................13

Figure 2. Carriers with LEP violations since 2002 ........................................................................14

Figure 3. Comparison of safety-performance rates for U.S.-licensed LEP and non-LEP CMV 

drivers .............................................................................................................................22

Figure 4. Foreign languages spoken by CMV drivers during roadside enforcement, as reported 

by interviewees. ..............................................................................................................70

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Driver Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States ............................................................x

Table 2. Vehicle-Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States ............................................................x

Table 3. LEP Violations per Carrier ..............................................................................................14

Table 4. LEP Violations by State, June 2002–June 2007 ..............................................................15

Table 5. Number of US-Licensed Drivers with Three or More Inspections, by English 

Proficiency Category ......................................................................................................18

Table 6. Inspection Levels Used to Calculate Individual Driver Rates .........................................19

Table 7. Driver Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States ..........................................................21

Table 8. Vehicle-Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States ..........................................................21

Table 9. Information on the Eight Ride-Along Observations, by Type of Company ....................26

Table 10. Information on the Eight Inspection Observations, by Type of Company ....................28

Table 11. Federal Interview Contacts ............................................................................................41

Table 12. Association Interview Contacts .....................................................................................42

Table 13. Public Interest Group Interview Contacts ......................................................................42

Table 14. Information on Phase II Interviewees’ Agencies, by Category .....................................53

Table 15. State Commercial Driver Licensure Practices ...............................................................58

Table 16. LEP Violations by Interviewed States, June 2002–June 2007 ......................................68

Table 17. Phase III Carrier Contacts ..............................................................................................84

Table 18. Phase III Driver Contacts ...............................................................................................85
v 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 

Acronym Definition 

AAMVA American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ABA American Bus Association 

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union 

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act 

Advocates Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

ATA American Trucking Association 

BASIC Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category 

BIT Biennial Inspection of Terminals program 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMS changeable message sign 

CMV commercial motor vehicle 

CR compliance review 

CSA Comprehensive Safety Analysis 

CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

CY calendar year 

DA Division Administrator 

DIR Driver Information Resource 

DMS dynamic message sign 
vi 

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

Hazmat hazardous materials 

HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations 

HOS hours of service 

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police 

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization 

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission 

ICCTA Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

IOO Independent Owner Operator 

LEP limited English proficiency (references FMCSA Regulation 49 CFR 

391.11(b)(2)) 

LSA Language Services Associates 

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System 

MCS-150 Motor Carrier Identification Report 
vii 

MCSAP Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

MCSR Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

MVA Motor Vehicle Administration 

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 

NCUTD National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

NTTC National Tank Truck Carriers 

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation 

OOS out of service 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PTDI Professional Truck Driver Institute 

PU power units 

TCA Truckload Carriers Association 

TCD traffic control device 

UMCA United Motor Coach Association 

US United States 

USC United States Code 

VMS variable message sign 
viii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, 

injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA, an agency of more than 1,000 

employees, has offices in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. FMCSA’s 

programs contribute to ensuring safety in motor carrier operations through enforcement of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), targeting of high-risk carriers and 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, improvements in safety information systems and 

CMV technologies, strengthening of CMV equipment and operating standards, and efforts to 

increase safety awareness. 

§391.11 of the FMCSR outlines the general qualifications for CMV drivers, including a 

requirement that they be proficient in English: 

...a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he can read and speak the 

English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand 

highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official 

inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records ... §391.11(b)(2) 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a preliminary research study designed to 

review English proficiency in relation to safe CMV operation. The objectives of the research 

were to determine: 

• The tasks that a CMV driver performs that require language comprehension in the 

interest of safety. 

• The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and 

highway departments, and highway safety public interest groups believe that the English 

language is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV drivers. 

• How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning English-language 

proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be 

assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during 

roadside inspections. 

• Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner. 

With these objectives in mind, this report presents a preliminary assessment of the extent to 

which English is needed and used by CMV drivers operating in the U.S., and of how Federal and 

State enforcement personnel and motor carriers determine whether a driver is capable of 

understanding and communicating in English sufficiently to ensure safety. 
ix 

The report is organized into four sections. The first three sections coincide with tasks outlined in 

the research project statement of work, while the fourth section presents the findings: 

• Data Analysis: Examining the inspection, violation, and crash records of carriers and 

drivers provides insight into the magnitude and scope of limited English proficiency 

(LEP) among drivers, as reported through FMCSA safety programs. 

• Observations: Observing CMV drivers during their daily working hours and at roadside 

inspections identifies the circumstances and specific tasks for which language 

comprehension is required. 

• Interviews: Conducting structured discussions with contacts from specified stakeholder 

groups helps gain insight into their general thoughts, opinions and understanding 

concerning drivers’ English proficiency in relation to safe CMV operation. 

• Findings: The results of the above tasks are synthesized. Each of the findings is supported 

by results from one or more tasks and summarizes important highlights from the research 

effort. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

The objectives of the data analysis were to: 

• Determine the magnitude and overall trends in the reporting of LEP violations. 

• Determine variations in State reporting of LEP violations. 

• Support the selection of States for the observation component of this project. 

• Explore any apparent associations between driver compliance regarding English 

proficiency and safety performance. 

The objectives were accomplished through analysis of data in the FMCSA-maintained Motor 

Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) and FMCSA Analysis Division’s Driver 

Information Resource (DIR). Violations of FMCSR §391.11(b)(2), referred to as limited English 

proficiency (LEP) violations, are stored in MCMIS and DIR. 

The data analysis component of the project was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of 

an initial data review to assess trends in national reporting of LEP violations, characteristics of 

carriers receiving LEP violations, and variations in State reporting of LEP violations. 

In the 5-year period from June 2002 through June 2007, a total of 39,265 inspections reported an 

LEP violation. 

• These violations were received by 11,911 carriers. 

– 64 percent of these carriers were U.S. domiciled and active as of June 2007. 

– 37 percent of these carriers received more than one LEP violation. 

– 61 percent of these carriers reported five or fewer power units. 
x 

• Between 2005 and 2007: 

– The number of driver inspections reporting LEP violations decreased. 

– The percentage of LEP violations reported as out of service (OOS) increased, 

coinciding with the release of the CVSA OOS standards on LEP. 

• The reporting rate of LEP varied dramatically among the States, the District of Columbia, 

and on the U.S. border, with localities reporting LEP in a maximum of 1.6 percent of 

driver inspections. 

• The reporting of LEP as OOS varied dramatically among the States, District of 

Columbia, and on the U.S. border, with localities reporting a maximum of 54 percent of 

LEP violations as creating an OOS condition. 

The second part of the data analysis was a review of carriers with LEP violations and various 

safety metrics, to determine whether associations exist between English-language proficiency 

and safe CMV operation. The analysis was designed to determine whether associations exist 

between regulatory compliance and safety performance but was not intended to determine the 

root cause of any observed associations. Therefore, the results do not imply a causal relationship 

as they may be due to several contributing factors. 

The analysis indicated that, for all but the Improper Loading/Cargo-Related BASIC violation 

rate, the U.S.-licensed LEP population had higher mean crash, OOS, and other BASIC violation 

rates than did the U.S.-licensed non-LEP population. All differences were statistically significant 

at greater than a 95 percent confidence level (see Table 1 and Table 2). 

Table 1. Driver Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and Non-LEP 

CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States 

Basic Rate Category LEP 

8,504 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Non-LEP 

1,016,123 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Significant 

t Statistic 

(p<05) 

Crash 0.218 0.185 p<.0005

Driver OOS 0.175 0.065 p<.0005

Unsafe Driving Violation 1.588 0.989 p<.0005

Fatigued Driving Violation 0.655 0.278 p<.0005

Driver Fitness Violation 0.1 0.058 p<.0005

Controlled Substance/Alcohol Violation 0.014 0.01 p<.0005

Table 2. Vehicle-Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and Non-LEP 

CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States 

Basic Rate Category LEP 

6,597 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Non-LEP 

711,846 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Significant 

t Statistic 

(p<05) 

Vehicle OOS 0.27 0.232 p<.0005

Vehicle Maintenance Violation 1.866 1.356 p<.0005

Improper Loading/Cargo Related Violation 1.588 0.989 p<.0005
xi 

OBSERVATIONS 

The objective of the observations portion of this study was to develop an inventory of those tasks 

performed by a CMV driver that require language comprehension in the interest of safety. 

This was accomplished through ride-alongs with U.S.-based CMV large-truck and passengercarrier drivers during their regular shifts and through the observation of driver and vehicle 

inspections performed on CMVs. The focus of the observations was to determine the extent to 

which drivers engage in tasks that require language comprehension. 

Language-related tasks performed by large-truck and passenger-carrier drivers as part of their 

daily activities and during inspections are summarized the following describes tasks that were 

observed during the large-truck ride-alongs. 

Ride-Alongs: observed tasks performed by large-truck Drivers that require language 

comprehension 

• Pre-Trip Activities. 

– Complete pre-trip inspection form. 

– Make logbook entry. 

– Read bill of lading and other paperwork regarding load and content. 

– Read paperwork providing location of and directions to delivery/pick-up stations. 

– Read and interpret maps and/or directions provided to plan trip. 

• En-Route Activities. 

– Drive to delivery stop. 

› Read and operate primary and secondary controls and instruments. 

› Read traffic signs (permanent and temporary; stationary, dynamic, and variable 

messages) pertaining to parameters such as speed limits, traffic conditions, 

construction areas, and lane restrictions. 

› Communicate with other drivers and dispatchers through communication devices 

such as radios, cell phones, and computer-input devices. 

› Listen to radio to obtain information (e.g., on weather and traffic conditions). 

– Arrive at store or receiving/shipping facility. 

› Read safety procedures/policies of facility. 

› Talk to security (sometimes through intercom) to gain access to facility. 

› Update logbook (electronic or paper) to note arrival at destination. 

› Communicate with facility representative (e.g., store manager) regarding delivery 

details such as parking location and load. 

– Unload truck. 

› Count and check off number of items (e.g., totes or pallets). 

› Sign bill of lading. 

– Depart for next stop. 

› Ask for directions to next location. 
xii 

› Call dispatcher or store manager at next stop to provide status information (e.g., 

whether driver is ahead of/behind schedule or is en route). 

› Update logbook (electronic or paper) to indicate change in duty status. 

• Post-Trip Activities. 

– Complete logbook.

– Announce return to dispatcher.

– Write up and submit repair request. 

– Sign paperwork to accept responsibility for contents and delivery. 

The following presents tasks observed during the passenger-carrier ride-alongs. 

• Pre-Trip Activities. 

– Read terminal safety policies and signs (e.g., “No idling over 5 minutes”). 

• En-Route Activities. 

– Pick up passengers. 

› Welcome passengers onboard (e.g., invite passengers to board, provide 

introductions). 

› Explain procedures: provide instructions regarding luggage storage, cell-phone 

usage, and smoking; identify locations (of restrooms or trash receptacles); advise 

caution when passengers move about while vehicle is in transit; explain actions 

required during emergencies. 

› Answer passengers’ questions. 

› Inform passengers about stops and final destination. 

– Depart for destination. 

› Read traffic signs (permanent and temporary; stationary, dynamic, and variable 

messages) pertaining to parameters such as speed limits, traffic conditions, 

construction areas, and lane restrictions. 

› Communicate with other drivers and dispatcher through communication devices 

such as radios, cell phones, and computer-input devices. 

› Communicate with passengers (e.g., respond to their questions and issues). 

– Stop for break. 

› Make intermittent announcements (e.g., announce a lunch stop). 

› Provide passengers with information (e.g., time for reboarding). 

› Announce departure and time remaining in journey. 

– Arrive at destination. 

› Announce arrival and state current stop. 

› Thank passengers for traveling with the company. 

› Instruct passengers to take their personal belongings and tell them how to retrieve 

their luggage. 
xiii 

Inspections: Observed Large-Truck and Passenger-Carrier Inspection Tasks That Require 

Language Comprehension 

• Driver Component. 

– Respond to inspector’s questions (e.g., tell inspector if vehicle is carrying passengers 

or co-drivers and advise with regard to load type and size and origin/destination). 

› Confirm if vehicle is carrying any hazmat. 

› Communicate with inspector to understand why vehicle is undergoing inspection. 

› Confirm if vehicle has been inspected in recent past. 

› Give logbook and other paperwork (license, medical card, bills of lading, 

insurance, registration papers, gas receipts) to inspector as requested. 

• Vehicle Component. 

– Follow inspector’s instructions to: 

› Pull over or park. 

› Open doors. 

› Show fire extinguisher and other safety devices. 

› Open hood. 

› Start engine. 

› Put vehicle into neutral 

› Pull emergency brake. 

› Place key in specific position in ignition. 

› Honk horn. 

› Activate right- and left-turn indicators. 

› Turn on lights (high- and low-beam). 

› Turn on windshield wipers. 

› Engage and hold brakes. 

› Release brakes and pressure. 

› Rotate wheels to right and left. 

› Release brakes while wheels are rotated. 

› Rotate steering wheel. 

› Turn off engine. 

› Open emergency windows (passenger carriers only). 

• Post-Inspection Activities. 

– Meet with inspector to: 

› Answer remaining questions about logbook, work hours, lease agreement, etc. 

– Produce additional paperwork. 

› Review violations and citations. 

– Sign inspection papers. 

– Respond to inspection outcome as needed (e.g., update logbook, contact company, 

arrange for repairs). 

The broad and varied use of language in CMV operations has important safety implications. In 

addition to its safety benefits, ease of communication aids drivers, inspectors, passengers, and 

facility operators. While the analyses focused on the importance of language comprehension, 
xiv 

several tasks highlight the need for English proficiency for CMV operations in the United States. 

In particular, the driver’s ability to read, understand, and respond to road signs in a timely 

manner is critical. Lack of English proficiency may lead to a failure to respond to nonstandard 

signage, such as VMS or customized signs at facilities, thus posing a safety hazard. 

• Emergencies occur infrequently, but when they do it is important that the driver be able 

to interact effectively with enforcement and emergency personnel as well as with the 

public. These interactions can be quite complex and can require a certain level of 

language proficiency. 

• Drivers should have sufficient language comprehension to be able to update and complete 

their logbooks. This task is required by FMCSA regulations, and—while it may not have 

a direct impact on safety—the logbook provides the inspector with information on a 

driver’s fitness and compliance with HOS regulations. 

• Finally, the observations highlight the need for drivers to be able to communicate 

effectively with inspectors. Inspectors performing vehicle inspections subject themselves 

to potentially dangerous conditions, and it is important that drivers understand what 

inspectors are doing so that mishaps can be prevented. 

INTERVIEWS 

For the third part of this study, the authors interviewed various stakeholder groups to obtain 

information on the following: 

• The extent to which interviewees—selected Federal and State personnel; safety 

associations and public interest groups; individual drivers, carriers, and motor carrier 

industry associations; and independent owner-operators—believe that a driver’s 

proficiency in the English language is necessary for the safe operation of a CMV. 

• How they interpret the current FMCSA regulation, and how they think a driver’s level of 

English proficiency could be assessed during the hiring process, in the daily work 

environment, and during inspections. 

• Their opinions on whether the English language proficiency regulation, as currently 

written, can be applied in a uniform manner while avoiding the potential for 

discrimination against individuals for whom English is a foreign language. 

Because the study was intended to be a scoping exercise, the interviews were limited in number 

and designed to produce qualitative findings rather than numerical material suitable for 

quantitative analysis. 

Organizations targeted for interviews fell into the following major categories: 

• Federal Government agencies. 

• State Government agencies. 

• Safety associations. 
xv 

• Industry associations. 

• Public interest groups. 

• Motor carriers and drivers. 

Based on information acquired through initial background research, the interview process was 

divided into three phases, each designed to add incrementally to the considerations that would 

subsequently be built into the next phase. The interviews conducted in Phase I, with Federal staff 

and contacts from professional associations and public interest groups, provided a broad array of 

insights into the issues, factors, and considerations regarding LEP among CMV drivers. They 

also generated questions to be explored in interviews with State enforcement, licensure, and 

signage officials (Phase II) and with motor carriers and drivers in the trucking and passenger 

carrier industries (Phase III). 

The Interview results covered a variety of topics. Insights gleaned from interviewees ranged 

from their perspective of the extent of the problem to suggested changes to current policies. 

Additional topics discussed were the impact of limited English proficiency on safety, inspection 

procedures used by enforcement personnel, and potential Title VI and Title VII concerns. 

The Phase I results suggested that there are a number of languages other than English being 

spoken by CMV drivers, and that the practice of employing drivers who lack English proficiency 

might not be uniform across industry sectors or similarly sized operations. Interviewees had three 

major areas of concern: 

• Safety of enforcement personnel. 

• Driver inability to communicate in emergency situations; English proficiency in these 

circumstances was felt to be especially important for hazmat and passenger-carrier 

drivers. 

• Driver inability to understand and respond to signage. 

Finally, interviewees said that the current regulatory framework impedes both compliance and 

enforcement. The reasons cited included: 

• Absence of critical tools. 

• Differences between licensure requirements and language proficiency requirements for 

drivers. 

• Variation in approach to enforcement among States. 

These insights informed the questions in Phase II put to State interviewees, who were 

responsible for signage, commercial driver licensing, and CMV enforcement activity. 

Interviews with State signage personnel concentrated on the comprehensibility of road signs, 

both conventional and DMS. Also discussed were multilingual signage and the relationship 

between English-language signage comprehension and roadway safety. In addition, the 

interviews focused on how States assess proposed signs for readability and comprehensibility. 
xvi 

Overall, signage contacts who commented on the subject agreed that some amount of English 

proficiency is needed for safety on the roads. 

The interviews with State CDL personnel revealed considerable variation in State policies with 

respect to: 

• Whether written and skills tests are offered in English only. 

• Other languages in which the written and skills tests are offered. 

• Whether interpreters or other aids to comprehension are permitted during testing. 

• Other languages in which special endorsement testing is offered. 

• Whether third parties are authorized to administer testing. 

• Whether the State requires re-testing of drivers with out-of-State CDLs who want to 

transfer their licenses. 

There was some consensus among the CDL interviewees with regard to the need for drivers to 

have sufficient English proficiency to communicate with emergency personnel and be able to 

read and respond to both fixed and dynamic signage. The States differed widely in how they test 

drivers’ understanding of signage, and not all of them evaluate drivers’ comprehension of signs 

that use words. 

The interviews of State enforcement officials revealed some commonalities and many 

differences in policies and procedures with regard to English proficiency among CMV drivers. 

All nine States reported encountering foreign languages; the total number reported was more 

than 23. Most, but not all, interviewees viewed lack of English proficiency to be a safety issue. 

The enforcement practices described by those who did hold this belief varied greatly. Some 

States enforce the English proficiency requirement but to varying degrees of strictness (reporting 

violations vs. issuing citations vs. putting drivers out of service). Others take the CVSA Out-ofService criterion (“communicate sufficiently”) literally and use gestures and other visual aids (as 

well as interpreters) in order to complete the inspection successfully. 

The Phase III interviews, with individual motor carriers and CMV drivers, provided the 

opportunity to obtain information on procedures that carriers follow so as to comply with the 

regulation. The company interviewees represented a few large and medium-sized carriers and 

one large passenger carrier; the drivers were employees of these companies. 

The companies interviewed have the financial wherewithal to operate extensive human resource 

operations to recruit, screen, and train drivers, and all of them view hiring non-English-speaking 

drivers as an unacceptable regulatory and legal risk. They, as well as the drivers who were 

interviewed, shared the opinion that drivers must have sufficient proficiency in English to be 

able to read signs and understand and respond to enforcement personnel. They also believed that 

hazmat and passenger carrier drivers need more advanced levels of English proficiency in order 

to do their jobs safely. 
xvii 

FINDINGS 

Limited English proficiency in the CMV driver population does exist. In the 5 years of MCMIS 

data examined, more than 39,000 inspections reported a violation of §391.11(b)(2). 

The broad and varied use of language in CMV operations has important safety implications. In 

particular, the ability to read, understand, and respond appropriately to road signs is critical. In 

addition to the safety benefits, ease of communication helps drivers, inspectors, passengers, and 

facility operators. It should be noted that lack of “English proficiency” as defined in 

§391.11(b)(2) is not limited to non-native English-speaking drivers; native English-speaking 

drivers who are not able to read or write and who are untrained in or unaware of specific 

terminology used in CMV operations also encounter problems in English-language 

comprehension. 

This section of the report highlights findings for each of the research objectives below and 

considers the implications of these findings for public safety. Each objective is presented, along 

with a number of summary points and followed by a brief discussion of the information gathered 

to support each point. It is important to remember that much of what was done as part of this 

research was qualitative in nature. The study endeavored to learn: 

• The tasks CMV drivers perform that require language comprehension in the interest of 

safety. 

• The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and 

highway departments, and highway safety groups believe that English language 

proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV drivers. 

• How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning English-language 

proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be 

assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during 

roadside inspections. 

• Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner. 

The tasks that CMV drivers perform that require language comprehension in the interest 

of safety 

Information in support of this research objective was obtained through firsthand observations of 

CMV drivers both on the road and during inspections. These observations provide a basis for 

examining the extent to which large-truck and passenger carrier drivers perform activities 

requiring language comprehension in a workday. As discussed earlier, depending on the job, 

much of this interaction requires that drivers be able to speak and understand a common 

language with the public (i.e., other drivers and customers), enforcement and emergency 

response personnel, and other employees of their companies. The complexity of these 

interactions varies, and it is important to note that even seemingly simple conversations—for 

example, those in which inspectors instruct drivers during vehicle inspections—can have 
xviii 

important safety implications. The findings from the task analysis can be summarized as three 

main points: 

• A driver’s lack of proficiency in English has a potential adverse impact on reaction time 

even in standard situations. This increased reaction time can lead to the unsafe operation 

of a CMV. 

• English language comprehension is critical in non-standard situations. 

• The ability to communicate effectively in a common language is essential to the 

investigative nature of an inspection. 

The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and 

highway departments, and highway safety advocacy groups believe that English language 

proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV drivers 

Information in support of this research objective was obtained primarily through interviews with 

stakeholders. The findings can be summarized as three main points: 

• All CMV drivers must be able to read and respond appropriately to signage in standard 

and nonstandard situations. 

• English proficiency is especially important for drivers of hazmat and passengers. 

• If an inspector or other officer and the driver are unable to communicate, the safety of 

both is potentially at risk. 

How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning English-language 

proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be 

assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during 

roadside inspections 

This research objective was explored in two parts. First, the study team wanted to find out how 

stakeholders interpret the current regulation. Second, it wanted to ascertain stakeholders’ 

opinions regarding how a driver’s level of English proficiency could be assessed in the licensure 

and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during roadside inspections. 

Information concerning stakeholders’ interpretations of the current rule was obtained through 

firsthand observations and through telephone interviews. The findings can be summarized as two 

major points: 

• Interpretation of the regulation and associated policies varies among States, among 

agencies within a State, and among inspectors. 

• The wide variation in State policies with regard to testing in foreign languages often 

results in a separation of the English-proficiency qualification from the CDL process. 

Information pertaining to the second part of the research objective, concerning how stakeholders 

believe that drivers’ English proficiency could be assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, 
xix 

in the daily work environment, and during roadside inspections, was obtained primarily through 

interviews. The findings are summarized as three major points: 

• Assessment of English proficiency should take place during the licensing process. 

• Current processes should be refined and made more consistent. 

• Specific standards should be developed and applied. 

Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner 

Information in support of this research objective was obtained primarily through data analysis 

and interviews with stakeholders. The findings can be summarized as two major points: 

• There is no nationwide standard or test for English proficiency; therefore the regulation 

cannot be applied in a uniform manner by either motor carriers or enforcement officials. 

• The argument has been made that, as written, the broadness and lack of specificity in the 

regulation is at odds with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

CONCLUSION 

This study was initiated to obtain a preliminary assessment of the extent to which the English 

language is needed and used by CMV drivers operating in the US, and also of the extent to 

which Federal and State enforcement personnel and motor carriers determine whether drivers are 

capable of understanding and communicating in English sufficiently to ensure safety. The 

study’s data analysis, observations, and interviews examined: 

• The tasks CMV drivers perform that require language comprehension in the interest of 

safety. 

• The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies and 

highway departments, and highway safety advocacy groups believe that English 

proficiency is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV drivers. 

• How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning English-language 

proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency could be 

assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, and during 

roadside inspections. 

• Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner. 
xx 

The issue of English proficiency among CMV drivers is complex and not confined to FMCSA. It 

spans multiple agencies at both Federal and State levels and involves millions of CMV drivers.1

All three parts of this study—data analysis, observations, and interviews—provide insight into 

the importance of English proficiency in safe CMV operation. To have a true impact on public 

safety, FMCSA will need to partner with stakeholders and other agencies to develop a systems 

approach for setting standards and assessment methods that can be uniformly applied. 

 

1

 http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/International/border.asp?redirect=GenStats.asp 
xxi 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of a research study conducted by the John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration’s (FMCSA) Office of Policy and Program Development. At present, 

§391.11(b)(2) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) States that: 

... a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he . . . can read and speak 

the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to 

understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to 

respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records . . . 

This study was initiated to obtain a preliminary assessment of the extent to which the English 

language is needed and used by commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in the 

United States, and of how Federal and State enforcement personnel and motor carriers 

determine whether a driver is capable of understanding and communicating in English 

sufficiently to ensure safety. 

FMCSA, an agency of over 1,000 employees, is dedicated to improving motor carrier safety 

on the Nation’s highways. It has offices in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico. FMCSA’s programs contribute to ensuring safety in motor carrier operations through 

strong enforcement of safety regulations, targeting of high-risk carriers and CMV drivers, 

improvements in safety information systems and CMV technologies, strengthening of CMV 

equipment and operating standards, and efforts to increase safety awareness. 

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

1.1.1 Institutional Oversight of the Motor Carrier Industry 

In August 1935, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (the Bureau) was established within the 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) pursuant to provisions of the Motor Carrier Act 

(subsequently cited as Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act). 

In 1967, various motor carrier regulations were moved from the Bureau to the newly 

established Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which comprised entities transferred 

from the Bureau of Public Roads and the National Highway Safety Bureau within the 

Department of Commerce. Three decades later, as a result of the Interstate Commerce 

Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), FHWA assumed additional commercial 

interstate truck and bus regulatory functions. 

The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, signed 

by then-President Bill Clinton on December 9, 1999, also contained language prohibiting the 

use of funds appropriated or limited in the Act to carry out the functions and operations of the 

“Office of Motor Carriers” within FHWA. This effectively resulted in the transfer of motor 

carrier functions and operations out of FHWA, including the interstate truck and bus 
2 

regulatory functions previously assumed under ICCTA, by action of then-Secretary Rodney 

Slater. On that same date, President Clinton also signed the Motor Carrier Safety 

Improvement Act of 1999, which established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), effective January 1, 2000.2

 

1.1.2 Evolution of the English-Language-Proficiency Regulation for CMV Drivers 

In 1936, as part of its newly promulgated Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (MCSR), the 

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety established an English-language requirement for drivers of 

CMVs being operated in interstate or foreign commerce by common and contract carriers. 

The original wording in Part I.3 required that: 

. . . no motor carrier shall drive, or require or permit any person to drive, any 

motor vehicle operated in interstate or foreign commerce, unless the person so 

driving possesses the following minimum qualifications: (k) Ability to read and 

speak the English language, unless the person was engaged in so driving on 

July 1, 1937 or within 1 year prior thereto, but in any case ability to 

understand traffic and warning signs.3 

In 1939, the Bureau made changes and additions to the MCSR, including elimination of the 

exceptions granted by the original rules for drivers unable to read or speak English, provided 

that they could understand traffic and warning signs.4 

In 1969, FHWA, which was considering a complete revision of the MCSR relative to 

qualifications of CMV drivers, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and a 

request for comments. FHWA proposed that §391.11(b)(2) be revised to read: 

. . . a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he ... can read, write, and 

speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to 

understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to 

understand oral and written directions in the English language, to respond to 

official inquiries, and to make entries in the English language on reports and 

records.5

 

The following year, FHWA issued a Final Rule that announced substantive amendments to 

§391 and §392 of the FMCSR. It was thought that retention of the requirement that a driver 

must be able to write English would lead to unnecessary loss of employment by experienced, 

capable drivers who were perhaps literate only in a language other than English. 

§391.11(b)(2), General qualifications of drivers, was thus revised to read: 

. . . a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he . . can read and speak 

the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to 

 

2

 FHWA Order M 1100.1A, Ch. 27, Introduction, May 30, 2002; 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/m11001a/introduction.htm. 3

 1 MCC 1, at 18-19. 

4

 14 MCC 669, at 675. 

5

 34 FR 9082. 
3 

understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to 

understand oral and written directions in the English language, to respond to 

official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.6

 

Almost 30 more years elapsed until, in 1997, FHWA published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), requesting comments on certain proposed revisions to the 

English-language requirement in §391.11(b)(2).7

 The proposed revisions were prompted by a 

number of factors: 

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had raised the concern to FHWA’s 

Office of Civil Rights that, as written, the English-speaking requirement was in 

conflict with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination 

in the administration of Federally funded programs on the basis of race or national 

origin.8

 The ACLU was also of the opinion that, as written, the English-speaking 

requirement was overly broad and subject to arbitrary enforcement, causing potential 

interference with constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. 

• The State of Utah had specifically requested guidance from FHWA relative to 

enforcement of the English-language requirement. FHWA noted that the ICC’s intent, 

at the time the rule was originally promulgated, was that the regulation not be enforced 

at the roadside. The employer (motor carrier) was presumed to know which 

communications skills may be necessary because of the type of cargo being handled, 

the route to be taken, and/or the nature of needed contact with the public. 

• In 1995, Working Group 1 of the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee, 

established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), adopted the 

following resolution:9

That in recognition of the three countries’ language differences it is the 

responsibility of the driver and the motor carrier to be able to 

communicate in the country in which the driver/carrier is operating so 

that safety is not compromised. 

FHWA was considering replacing the general requirement that drivers exhibit English 

proficiency and establishing a set of performance-oriented standards based on tasks that 

drivers are expected to perform that require knowledge of English. This change reflected the 

agency’s position that drivers should possess the basic functional communications and 

comprehension abilities necessary to ensure safety. 

FHWA further noted that it had never made speaking English a specific prerequisite for the 

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and that in fact it had proposed and later authorized 

administration of the CDL test in foreign languages. It added that “States, however, do 

 

6

 35 FR 6458. 

7 62 FR 45200. 

8

 42 USC §2000d. 

9

 http://www.maeci-dfait.gc.ca/nafta-alena/report13-en.asp. 
4 

administer some form of test to all license applicants which is intended to demonstrate their 

ability to read or recognize warning signs.” 

FHWA invited comment in response to five questions: 

• Are there known instances in which a safety problem occurred that could be attributed, 

in whole or in part, to the driver not being able to read or speak English sufficiently to 

understand traffic signs or written or verbal instructions relative to the operation, 

loading, or unloading of the vehicle? Commenters are encouraged to give a detailed 

description of such an occurrence, the likelihood of repetition, and how the inability to 

read or speak the English language played a role. 

• Do any of the States require drivers who operate CMVs exclusively in intrastate 

commerce to read and speak the English language? If so, was the requirement 

established only to achieve compatibility with the FMCSR? If there were other 

reasons for establishing such a requirement, please elaborate. 

• How do States typically determine whether or not a driver or motor carrier is in 

violation of Section 391.11(b)(2) or an equivalent State provision? Are there particular 

English phrases or terms that are used to test the driver’s comprehension of the 

English language? Are there specific highway signs or messages that are shown to the 

driver? 

• Are there any cases in which State officials, exercising their authority under State law, 

have placed drivers out of service for being unable to read or speak the English 

language, after making a determination that the driver’s inability to comprehend the 

language created a safety risk that was too great to be ignored? If so, how did the State 

official determine that the safety risk was at a level that would warrant placing the 

driver out of service? Was the enforcement action subsequently challenged in court? 

What was the outcome? 

• How does one measure an individual’s level of “English proficiency” or whether that 

individual has a “working knowledge of English”? Alternatively, what language tasks 

should a driver be able to perform, and what “performance-oriented” language 

standards should we impose to guarantee this performance? 

In 2003, FMCSA issued a Notice of Withdrawal of the 1997 proposed rulemaking on the 

English-language requirement.10 After analysis and review, FMCSA concluded that there 

were no quantifiable data to support modifying the regulation to require a more stringent or 

definitive standard, or to require State motor vehicle agencies to administer a specific test for 

English proficiency. 

FMCSA observed that very few of the comments filed in response to the ANPRM had 

addressed the five questions posed; rather, the vast majority of those commenting had 

misconstrued the request as a proposal to lower the current English-proficiency standard. 

Comments were received from groups representing the trucking industry, labor groups, and 

 

10 68 FR 43889. 
5 

insurance companies, as well as from motor carriers and drivers. Nine States and 20 public 

commenters recommended either retaining the current standard or imposing a more stringent 

one. 

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) addressed civil rights concerns in their comments. The ACLU 

submitted its legal analysis of the regulation in relation to Titles VI and VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000d. The ACLU analysis provided arguments to support its 

conclusions that the criteria in the regulation: 

. . . broadly and vaguely define the qualifications of a vehicle driver on behalf 

of a motor carrier, require an unnecessarily high level of fluency in the 

English language, and have an unjustifiable discriminatory impact upon 

national origin and ethnic minorities. . . . To meet the necessity standard 

[under Title VII] in this case, the English fluency requirements of 49 CFR 

391.11(b)(2) must be necessary to achieve a “legitimate, important and 

integral” goal of the institutional mission of the Department of Transportation 

and Federal Highway Administration. . . . However, the criteria of the 

regulation are overbroad, requiring a level of English not necessary to the 

actual task of “safe and efficient” operation of a motor carrier vehicle.11

EEOC, in its comments, said that it shared: 

. . . the concern of the American Civil Liberties Union that, as currently 

written, the FMCSR English fluency requirement may conflict with the Federal 

civil rights laws. . . . With regard to Title VII, the current fluency regulation 

may require abilities that are not, in fact, necessary to perform the duties of a 

particular interstate commercial motor vehicle driving job for a particular 

employer. For example, it is possible that satisfactory performance of a 

particular job might not require the ability to converse with the general public, 

or might not require fluency in English to converse with the general public. In 

this way, the current fluency requirement might conflict with Title VII.12

In its decision, FMCSA rejected the arguments of ACLU and EEOC, stating as follows: 

The information introduced in response to the ANPRM does not establish that 

the current regulation requires an unnecessarily high level of English fluency 

that has resulted in a discriminatory impact or effect based upon national 

origin, color, or ethnicity. . . . 

In analyzing Sec. 391.11(b)(2) in today’s climate, the FMCSA believes that the 

regulation was, and remains, a requirement imposed to ensure that persons 

who drive commercial motor vehicles operate safely. As written, the regulation 

sets forth the qualifications of drivers of CMVs to read and speak the English 

 

11 FMCSA Docket Entry FMCSA-1997-2759-33. 12 FMCSA Docket Entry FMCSA-1997-2759-35.
6 

language and allows each motor carrier employer the flexibility to determine 

the extent of proficiency needed to enforce it. It provides carriers with the 

flexibility to individually determine whether a driver has communication skills 

and English fluency to operate safely on the highway. There is no data 

available to suggest that this flexibility has caused discrimination or to 

conclude that motor carriers are employing the English language requirement 

in anything other than an evenhanded manner, tailored to the requirements of 

each particular company’s operations. Nor do we have evidence to suggest 

that our State and local partners are subjecting limited English speakers to 

discrimination based on their race, color or national origin. The intent of the 

English-only regulation is not to discriminate, but to advance public safety and 

this is an essential aspect of our program. 

Specifically, with regard to concerns about arbitrary or discriminatory 

enforcement, the FMCSA has found no evidence to suggest that enforcement 

officers routinely issue citations for lack of English proficiency. To the extent 

that such enforcement discretion is exercised, the FMCSA believes that such 

instances are exceedingly rare and may be occasioned by a misunderstanding 

of the provisions of Sec. 391.11(b)(2). From the comments and the data 

available, the FMCSA believes that the discretion of enforcement officials to 

place a driver out of service when he or she constitutes a safety hazard is, and 

has been used judiciously. 

Further, FMCSA finds no inconsistency in its authorization to States to offer 

CDL tests in languages other than English, while at the same time requiring 

motor carrier employers to ensure a level of English proficiency for drivers on 

our public highways. The tests, training and study manuals associated with 

obtaining a CDL are complex. Therefore, the administration of the CDL test in 

languages other than English is justified. However, in actual operation on the 

highway, the CDL driver must be able, based on the needs of the carrier’s 

operation, to have a sufficient command of English to ensure that safety is not 

compromised. 

1.1.3 CVSA North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria 

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) is an association of State, local, provincial, 

and Federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier 

safety laws and regulations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. CVSA provides a 

mechanism for the development of consensus on issues of common concern. The North 

American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOS Criteria), issued on April 1, 2005, is a 

detailed list of conditions that CVSA members have agreed are sufficiently hazardous to 

justify restricting further operations by a driver or a CMV. Each year, CVSA reviews the 

OOS Criteria and makes necessary changes. 

According to FMCSA: 

Most safety violations found during roadside inspections relate to the 

condition of CMVs. Some of these violations can be corrected at the roadside; 

for example, a driver can repair a turn signal that is not functioning. Others 
7 

must be corrected at a repair facility. If a particular safety violation presents 

no immediate or undue threat to public safety, it would be an unnecessary 

interruption in the flow of commerce and perhaps even cause a traffic safety 

problem to require the motor carrier to undertake corrective action on site. In 

such cases, the assessment of a warning, fine, or other penalty is sufficient; the 

repairs necessary to prevent further deterioration or ultimately to correct the 

condition may safely be deferred to another time and place. In this sense, the 

OOS Criteria are usually less stringent than the FMCSR.13

State inspectors with general police powers have authority under State law to stop and seize 

summarily. All States participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) 

have agreed that their inspectors will use the OOS Criteria when exercising this power. If an 

inspector observes inherently dangerous conditions that are identified in the OOS Criteria, 

then he or she may issue an OOS order. 

Although the regulation had been in effect since 1970, a violation of §391.11(b)(2) was not a 

driver OOS item in the OOS Criteria until recently. In October 1997, CVSA submitted 

comments on the August 1997 ANPRM. CVSA requested that the 1995 language be 

incorporated into §391.11(b)(2), stating that this language, “coupled with appropriate 

performance-oriented standards based on tasks a driver is expected to perform which require 

knowledge of the English language, will be sufficient to ensure safe highways in the U.S.”14 

At CVSA’s 2001 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, the Driver-Traffic Enforcement 

Committee discussed this issue at length and then sent a letter on January 28, 2002, to 

FMCSA, which stated: 

At the request of our Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee, CVSA 

respectfully requests that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

convene a working group to develop clear and concise policy direction to 

roadside law enforcement personnel on how to address the English language 

regulation in the field. 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) States that each driver is qualified 

to drive a commercial motor vehicle if he/she “can read and speak the English 

language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand 

highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to 

official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.” The problem 

with this regulatory language is that it is nebulous and non-descriptive, 

leaving open the opportunity for interpretation. The result of this ambiguity is 

that the regulation is not enforced properly or uniformly. A reasonable and 

practical standard must be developed and applied to determine whether or not 

a driver can meet this requirement and whether or not the driver should be 

allowed to continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle. 

With NAFTA implementation imminent, it is of critical importance that there 

be clear guidance issued on this matter, and CVSA offers our assistance in 

 

13 July 20, 1998 Federal Register (68 FR 38791). 14 FHWA-97-2759-21. 
8 

helping the Agency craft a reasonable solution. This is not only important for 

enforcement, but also for industry as it gives more direction on what is 

expected of them. We urge the Agency to work with CVSA and others to act 

swiftly on this, as it directly impacts safety and security on the roadways.15 

On September 10, 2003, CVSA submitted its petition for rulemaking to FMCSA for 

amending 49 CFR Part 391 to facilitate adequate language proficiency for commercial 

drivers. Included in the petition was documentation on a number of situations where 

communication had been an issue with field inspectors. 

In 2004, CVSA amended the OOS Criteria to include §391.11(b)(2), adding the following 

language: 

Driver is unable to communicate sufficiently to understand and respond to 

official inquiries and directions. Place driver Out-of-Service. 

The wording of the new entry followed that of the June 1995 NAFTA resolution. FMCSA 

advised its field personnel to cite drivers and motor carriers for violations of §391.11(b)(2) 

but not to place them out of service. 

On July 20, 2007, FMCSA issued a guidance memorandum to field staff, effective 

immediately, ordering enforcement of the OOS criterion:16

The confirmation of a driver’s ability to communicate in English sufficiently to understand 

and respond to official inquiries and direction will be made by the CMV inspector on the 

basis of a driver interview conducted during the driver/vehicle inspection. The driver 

interview must be conducted in English and should include, at a minimum, the following 

inquiries: 

• The origin and destination of the trip. 

• The amount of time spent on duty, including driving time, and the record of duty 

status (or logbook). 

• The driver’s license. 

• Vehicle components and systems subject to the FMCSR. 

If the inspector determines the driver is unable to understand and respond to official 

inquiries and directions in English, the driver should be cited for a violation of section 

391.11(b)(2) and placed out of service in accordance with CVSA OOS Criteria. 

 

15 CVSA, Language Proficiency Chronology of Events. Undated. 16 FMCSA Memorandum MC-ECE-0005-07, July 20, 2007. 
9 

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of this research were to determine: 

• The tasks that a CMV driver performs that require language comprehension in the 

interest of safety. 

• The extent to which selected Federal and State enforcement personnel, motor carrier 

industry groups, individual motor carriers and drivers, State driver licensing agencies 

and highway departments, and highway safety public interest groups believe that the 

English language is necessary for the safe operation of trucks and buses by CMV 

drivers. 

• How these stakeholders interpret the current FMCSA rule concerning Englishlanguage proficiency, and how they believe that a driver’s level of English proficiency 

could be assessed in the licensure and hiring processes, in the daily work environment, 

and during roadside inspections. 

• Whether stakeholder groups believe that the English-language standard, as currently 

written, can be applied in a fair and uniform manner. 

To achieve the stated objectives, the study team undertook three major activities: 

• Data analysis: MCMIS inspection and crash data were examined, and a series of 

analyses were performed to better understand the state of reporting of §391.11(b)(2) 

and to investigate the potential link between violations and driver performance. 

• Observations: CMV drivers were observed during their daily working hours and 

during inspections to determine which of their tasks required language comprehension. 

• Interviews: A range of stakeholders (Federal agencies, professional associations, 

public interest groups, States, carriers, and drivers) were interviewed to determine 

which situations they believe require knowledge of the English language, to identify 

any testing methods that might currently be in use to assess drivers’ English 

proficiency, and to generate ideas on how to fairly and uniformly enforce the 

regulation. 

These assessment activities began in January 2007 and continued through August 2007. 
10 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 
11 

2. METHODS AND RESULTS 

2.1 DATA ANALYSIS 

2.1.1 Overview 

Insight into the magnitude and scope of limited English proficiency (LEP) among drivers, as 

reported through FMCSA safety programs, was gained by examination of the inspection, 

violation, and crash records of carriers and drivers. The objectives of the data analysis were 

to: 

• Determine the magnitude and overall trends in the reporting of LEP violations. 

• Determine variations in State reporting of LEP violations. 

• Support the selection of States for the observation component of this project. 

• Explore any apparent associations between driver compliance regarding English 

proficiency and safety performance. 

The tasks were accomplished through use of the FMCSA-maintained Motor Carrier 

Management Information System (MCMIS). MCMIS contains data on inspections, 

compliance reviews (CRs), enforcements, and crashes for all motor carriers and hazardous 

materials (hazmat) shippers subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) 

and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). 

The analysis covered reported activity in MCMIS related to FMCSR §391.11(b)(2), General 

qualifications of drivers, which States: 

Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the 

general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English 

language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and 

records. 

Violations of this regulation found during FMCSA safety program activities (inspections, 

CRs, and enforcements) are recorded in MCMIS and are linked to the carrier and driver who 

received the violation. MCMIS was also used as the basis for the Driver Information Resource 

(DIR) database, which provides individual CMV-driver crash and inspection histories. 

The data analysis component of this project was divided into two efforts: 

• Initial Data Review 

– An initial data review was performed to assess: 

› Trends in national reporting of LEP violations 

› Characteristics of carriers receiving LEP violations 

› Variations in State reporting of LEP violations 

• Regulatory Compliance and Safety Performance Associations—A review of English 

proficiency and various safety metrics was performed to determine whether 

associations exist between regulatory compliance and safety performance. 
12 

2.1.2 Initial Data Review 

2.1.2.1 Analysis Approach 

The analysis consisted of a review of inspection, violation, and census records reported in 

MCMIS. It included a determination of the frequency of inspections reporting LEP violations 

by State, calendar year (CY), and OOS status as well as the characteristics of carriers 

receiving such violations. 

Data Source 

The data source for this carrier-level analysis was MCMIS inspection records between June 

22, 2002, and June 21, 2007. For inspections between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2007, the 

June 22, 2007 MCMIS snapshot was used. For inspections between June 22, 2002, and 

December 31, 2004, the December 23, 2005 MCMIS snapshot was used. 

Only inspections that provided an opportunity to identify LEP violations (during the driver 

component) were used. For the data analysis, Inspection Levels I (North American Standard), 

II (Walk Around Driver/Vehicle), and III (Driver Only) were included. Another criterion for 

inclusion was that carrier information noted on the inspection records had to be matched to a 

carrier in the MCMIS census. 

2.1.2.2 Analysis Results 

National Reporting 

Approximately 3 million driver inspections are conducted annually. Figure 1 shows the 

numbers of driver inspections reported in MCMIS between 2002 and 2007 that resulted in a 

LEP violation. As previously stated, inspection records between June 22, 2002, and June 21, 

2007, were used in this analysis; however, since inspection records for 2002 and 2007 did not 

contain data for the entire 12-month period, estimates for these years were derived by 

doubling the values for the 6-month periods that were available. This allowed for a 6-year 

trend analysis. 
13 

Figure 1. Inspections reporting LEP non-OOS and OOS violations, 2002–2007 

2.1.2.3 LEP Violations 

In the 5-year period between June 22, 2002 and June 21, 2007, a total of 39,265 inspections 

reported a LEP violation. 

During the timeframe examined, CY 2004 had the greatest number of inspections, 9,110, 

reporting a LEP violation. The highest percentage was in 2004, with 3.1 (0.31 percent) of 

1,000 reporting at least one violation. The lowest percentage was in 2006, with 2.0 (0.20 

percent) of 1,000 reporting a violation. 

LEP OOS Violations 

In some instances, LEP violations were recorded as creating an OOS condition. The number 

of LEP OOS violations fluctuated between 36 and 55 per year between 2002 and 2004; from 

2004 to 2005, the number increased dramatically, reaching 1,855 in 2005. This corresponded 

to the release, in April 2005, of the CVSA OOS Criteria regarding enforcement of LEP 

violations as an OOS condition. The number of driver inspections with LEP OOS violations 

continued to increase throughout 2006. 

Carrier Characteristics 

Between June 2002 and June 2007, 11,911 carriers received a LEP violation. As of June 22, 

2007, these carriers consisted of: 

• 7,705 U.S.-domiciled active carriers. 

• 1,257 non-U.S.-domiciled active carriers. 

• 2,949 inactive carriers. 
14 

Figure 2 shows the domicile and status of carriers who received a LEP violation between June 

2002 and June 2007. 

Figure 2. Carriers with LEP violations since 2002 

Approximately 25 percent of carriers issued a LEP violation during the study period were 

inactive by its close. Of active carriers issued a LEP violation, non-U.S.-domiciled carriers 

represented approximately one-seventh of the total. 

Table 3 shows the numbers of LEP violations for the active, U.S.-domiciled carrier 

population. 

Table 3. LEP Violations per Carrier 

Number of 

Violations 

Number of 

Carriers 

Percentage

1 4,875 63.27

2 1,292 16.77

3 537 6.97

4 283 3.67

5 or more 718 9.32

As shown in Table 3, of the active U.S. carriers with LEP violations, approximately 63 

percent received only one violation. Carriers receiving two or more LEP violations numbered 

2,830; of these, 718 received five or more violations. 

2.1.2.4 State Reporting 

Inspectors in all 50 States and the District of Columbia reported LEP violations. 
15 

LEP Violations 

Table 4 presents MCMIS data on LEP violations by State (ranked by number of driver 

inspections) between June 22, 2002, and June 21, 2007. 

Table 4. LEP Violations by State, June 2002–June 2007 

State Driver 

Inspections 

Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

% Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

Driver 

Inspections with 

LEP OOS 

Violation 

% LEP 

Inspections with 

LEP as OOS 

CA 2,328,545 6 0 0 0

TX 1,502,164 9,610 0.64 42 0.44

WA 612,107 1,082 0.18 139 12.85

U.S.17 548,311 75 0.01 3 4

NY 507,409 886 0.17 222 25.06

MD 467,691 2,025 0.43 1,084 53.53

KY 442,358 349 0.08 101 28.94

GA 434,823 2,102 0.48 419 19.93

IL 417,256 860 0.21 162 18.84

NM 397,596 1,263 0.32 26 2.06

PA 386,303 2,011 0.52 480 23.87

FL 382,736 498 0.13 0 0

MO 376,214 995 0.26 254 25.53

OH 374,422 473 0.13 128 27.06

IA 338,160 964 0.29 134 13.9

TN 321,778 359 0.11 56 15.6

IN 310,492 862 0.28 257 29.81

CO 304,160 79 0.03 2 2.53

AR 271,834 487 0.18 28 5.75

NC 268,821 511 0.19 175 34.25

OR 266,568 935 0.35 71 7.59

KS 258,708 471 0.18 87 18.47

MI 244,505 1,126 0.46 239 21.23

LA 242,614 301 0.12 89 29.57

AZ 221,398 3,554 1.61 266 7.48

MS 194,274 226 0.12 46 20.35

WI 188,817 165 0.09 65 39.39

NJ 185,834 1,051 0.57 57 5.42

VA 182,295 341 0.19 61 17.89

MT 181,973 307 0.17 11 3.58

SC 172,031 194 0.11 28 14.43

MN 162,403 210 0.13 40 19.05

NE 160,998 919 0.57 258 28.07

AL 155,999 271 0.17 110 40.59

 

17 Inspections conducted by Federal personnel. 
16 

State Driver 

Inspections 

Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

% Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

Driver 

Inspections with 

LEP OOS 

Violation 

% LEP 

Inspections with 

LEP as OOS 

UT 152,668 714 0.47 47 6.58

SD 131,546 190 0.14 7 3.68

NV 120,424 552 0.46 73 13.22

WY 97,546 230 0.24 0 0

CT 96,432 551 0.57 93 16.88

MA 87,893 176 0.2 51 28.98

WV 87,127 67 0.08 8 11.94

OK 84,994 139 0.16 64 46.04

ND 83,359 54 0.06 1 1.85

ME 59,686 145 0.24 18 12.41

AK 44,095 9 0.02 8 88.89

ID 43,370 97 0.22 29 29.9

VT 42,655 261 0.61 25 9.58

NH 41,345 110 0.27 27 24.55

DC 30,686 88 0.29 48 54.55

DE 25,551 51 0.2 11 21.57

RI 18,920 209 1.1 17 8.13

HI 17,184 1 0.01 1 100

As shown in 

Table 4, California and Texas reported the most driver inspections—2,328,545 and 1,502,164, 

respectively—over the 5-year period, and Rhode Island and Hawaii reported the fewest: 

18,920 and 17,184, respectively. The rate of LEP reporting is not necessarily proportional to 

the size of the State inspection program; California and Hawaii, at opposite ends of the range 

of number of driver inspections reported, both had fewer than 0.01 percent of inspections 

resulting in LEP violations. 

Texas and Arizona reported the most driver inspections with a LEP violation: 9,610 and 

3,554, respectively. 

On average, States reported LEP violations in 0.29 percent of driver inspections; however, as 

Table 4 shows, there was wide variation among States, with rates ranging from zero to 1.61 

percent. The State with the lowest LEP reporting rate was California, which reported only six 

violations (0.0025 percent) out of 2,328,545 driver inspections. Arizona and Rhode Island had 

the highest LEP reporting rates, with more than 1 percent of driver inspections reporting LEP 

violations. 

LEP OOS Violations

As shown in 

Table 4, 53.53 percent of Maryland’s 2,025 LEP violations were reported as OOS. In contrast, 

in the State with the most LEP violations, Texas, only 0.44 percent resulted in an OOS order; 

none of the six LEP violations reported by California resulted in an OOS order; Florida and 

Wyoming also reported no LEP OOS violations. 
17 

2.1.3 Associations between Regulatory Compliance and Safety Performance 

The objective of this analysis was to determine whether associations exist between Englishlanguage proficiency and safe CMV operation. The analysis was not intended to determine 

the root cause of any observed associations. Such relationships may be the result of several 

contributing factors. 

2.1.3.1 Analysis Approach 

This analysis compared the safety performance data between two populations: CMV drivers 

who received an English proficiency violation and CMV drivers who did not. For the purpose 

of this analysis, safety performance comprises: 

• Crash rates. 

• Driver and vehicle OOS rates. 

• Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) violation rates. 

Data Source 

The data source for these driver-level analyses was a March 23, 2007 snapshot of DIR. Three 

years of inspection data (March 23, 2004 through March 22, 2007) and 5 years of crash data 

(March 23, 2002 through March 22, 2007) were used. Only inspections that included a driver 

component (Levels I [North American Standard], II [Walk Around Driver/Vehicle], and III 

[Driver Only]) were included. 

Driver Population 

For this analysis, a driver was assumed to have limited English proficiency if he or she was 

linked to a roadside inspection that resulted in a violation of §391.11(b)(2). In determining 

whether a driver had received an English proficiency violation, only inspections that provided 

an opportunity to identify LEP violations during the driver component were used. The 

analyses were performed on CMV drivers licensed in the United States. 

The driver population that received an English-proficiency violation as the result of an 

inspection is referred to as LEP drivers, while the population with no inspections resulting in 

an English-proficiency violation was considered to have met English-proficiency 

requirements and is referred to as non-LEP drivers. Because enforcement and reporting of 

LEP violations varied by State during the reporting period, it is possible that some drivers 

classified in this analysis as non-LEP may in fact have had limited English proficiency. 

The analysis focused only on drivers with three or more inspections, thereby providing a 

control for exposure to inspection to mitigate the impact of variability in the inspection 

program. This approach makes any associations between English proficiency and safety 

performance more reliable and robust than the results of the same analysis including drivers 

with fewer inspections. 

Table 5 lists the English proficiency classification (LEP and non-LEP) of drivers with three or 

more inspections. These drivers served as the population groups for the safety performance 

analysis. 
18 

Table 5. Number of US-Licensed Drivers with Three 

or More Inspections, by English Proficiency Category 

No. of LEP Drivers No. of Non-LEP 

Drivers 

Total 

8,504 1,016,123 1,024,627 

Behavior Categories 

The Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 team (now known as Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability) developed the BASICs under the premise that CMV crashes can ultimately be 

traced to the behavior of motor carriers and drivers. The BASICs, with examples of violations 

from each, are summarized below. Violation rates for each category laid the basis for the 

BASIC metrics. 

• Unsafe Driving: Dangerous or careless operation of a CMV. Example violations: 

speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, inattention. 

• Fatigued Driving: Driving a CMV while tired or drowsy. Incidents related to this 

BASIC are distinguished from those where unconsciousness or inability to react is 

brought about by the use of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances. Example 

violations: hours of service (HOS), logbook falsification or failure to complete; 

operating a CMV while ill or fatigued. 

• Driver Fitness: Operation of a CMV by a driver who is unfit due to lack of training or 

experience or to medical qualifications. Example violations: failure to have a valid 

and appropriate CDL, failure to have proper medical documentation. 

• Controlled Substances and Alcohol: Operation of a CMV while impaired due to 

alcohol, illegal drugs, or misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications. 

Example violations: use or possession of controlled substances or alcohol. 

• Vehicle Maintenance: CMV failure due to improper or inadequate maintenance. 

Example violations: faulty brakes, lights, and other mechanical defects; failure to 

make required repairs. 

• Improper Loading/Cargo-Related: Shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, and unsafe 

handling of hazmat. Example violations: improper load securement, cargo retention, 

unsafe hazmat handling. 

Rate Calculation 

The analysis compared the driver safety performance of two populations: LEP and non-LEP 

drivers. For all safety measures, an individual rate was calculated for each driver in the 

population. The population rate is the sum of individual driver rates normalized by the 

number of drivers within the population. 

For individual rate calculations involving violations, the inspections that were used depended 

on the type of metric. Driver-related metrics used all inspections that included a driver 

component, while vehicle-related metrics were calculated on the basis of a subset of driver 

inspections. Only driver inspections that included a vehicle component were used. The 

inspection levels relevant to each rate appear in Table 6. 
19 

Table 6. Inspection Levels Used to Calculate Individual Driver Rates 

Metric Type Individual Driver Rates Inspection Type Inspection 

Levels 

Driver-related Driver OOS, unsafe driving, fatigued 

driving, driver fitness, controlled 

substances/alcohol 

Those with driver 

component 

I, II, III 

Vehicle-related Vehicle OOS, vehicle maintenance, 

improper loading/cargo-related 

Those with both 

driver and vehicle 

components 

I, II 

Crash Rates 

The population’s crash rate was calculated as the number of crashes involving members of the 

population for the five-year period divided by the number of drivers within the population. 

Driver and Vehicle OOS Rates 

The population’s driver or vehicle OOS rate is the sum of the driver or vehicle OOS rates of 

individuals within a population normalized by the total number of drivers within the 

population. This calculation assumes equal exposure for all drivers. 

The individual driver OOS rate was calculated as the number of inspections in which the 

driver was placed OOS divided by the number of inspections that the driver received. LEP 

violations were excluded from this calculation since they are used to define the populations 

and are sometime cited as OOS. Inclusion of LEP OOS violations would have biased the LEP 

population’s driver OOS rate upward. 

The individual vehicle OOS rate was calculated as the number of inspections where the 

vehicle was placed OOS divided by the number of vehicle inspections with a driver 

component that the driver received. 

BASIC Violation Rates 

For all BASICs, the population’s BASIC violation rate is the sum of the BASIC violation 

rates of individuals within a population normalized by the total number of drivers within the 

population. Only violations in which a driver could be held responsible were used in these 

calculations. 

In calculating BASIC violation rates for the individuals within a population, a distinction was 

made between Unsafe Driving and Controlled Substance/Alcohol BASIC violation rates and 

other individual BASIC violation rates. Unsafe driving behavior, when observed by law 

enforcement officers, typically triggers a roadside inspection; therefore, the Unsafe Driving 

violation rate was not linked to exposure to inspections. This approach was also applied to the 

calculation of individual Controlled Substance/Alcohol BASIC violation rates. The other 

BASICs, which are discovered upon inspection, were linked to individual exposure to 

inspections. 

For the reason given above, Unsafe Driving and Controlled Substance/Alcohol BASIC 

violation rates for individuals were not normalized by the number of relevant inspections; 

rather, they were calculated as the straight sum of violations of that BASIC for the individual. 
20 

For the other BASICs, individual BASIC violation rates were calculated on the basis of a 

driver’s total number of violations in the category normalized by the number of relevant 

inspections that the driver experienced. The inspection levels relevant to each BASIC appear 

in 
21 

Table 6. 

LEP violations, which were classified into the Driver-Fitness BASIC, were excluded from the 

calculation of that BASIC violation rate since they were used to define the populations. 

Inclusion of LEP violations would have biased the LEP population’s driver-fitness BASIC 

violation rate upward. 

Statistical Significance Tests 

Differences in mean crash rates, OOS rates, and BASIC violation rates between LEP and nonLEP driver populations were tested for statistical significance. For each comparison, the null 

hypothesis that the mean violation rates of the two groups were equal was tested using the ttest. The t-test provides a measure of significance for the differences between two sample 

means. The differences observed in the comparisons reported in the following sections were 

statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 

2.1.3.2 Analysis Results 

CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States 

Variations in the reporting of LEP violations limited the determination of whether regulatory 

compliance and safety performance associations exist between LEP and non-LEP driver 

populations. The results presented below are based on these limited data. 

This analysis focused on the population of CMV drivers who are licensed in the United 

States. It investigated whether the crash, OOS, and BASIC violation rates of drivers who 

received a LEP violation in roadside inspections were significantly higher than those of 

drivers who did not receive a LEP violation. Table 7 compares the driver-related safety 

performance rates for the LEP and non-LEP populations licensed in the United States and 

Table 8 compares the vehicle-related safety performance rates for the LEP and non-LEP 

populations licensed in the United States. 

Table 7. Driver Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States 

Basic Rate Category LEP 

8,504 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Non-LEP 

1,016,123 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Significant 

t Statistic 

(p<05) 

Crash 0.218 0.185 p<.0005

Driver OOS 0.175 0.065 p<.0005

Unsafe Driving Violation 1.588 0.989 p<.0005

Fatigued Driving Violation 0.655 0.278 p<.0005

Driver Fitness Violation 0.1 0.058 p<.0005

Controlled Substance/Alcohol Violation 0.014 0.01 p<.0005

Table 8. Vehicle-Related Measures Comparison of Safety Performance Rates for LEP and NonLEP CMV Drivers Licensed in the United States 

Basic Rate Category LEP 

6,597 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Non-LEP 

711,846 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Significant 

t Statistic 

(p<05) 
22 

Basic Rate Category LEP 

6,597 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Non-LEP 

711,846 Drivers 

Mean Rates 

Significant 

t Statistic 

(p<05) 

Vehicle OOS 0.27 0.232 p<.0005

Vehicle Maintenance Violation 1.866 1.356 p<.0005

Improper Loading/Cargo Related 

Violation 

1.588 0.989 p<.0005

The analysis indicated that, for all but the Improper Loading/Cargo-Related BASIC violation 

rate, the US-licensed LEP population had higher mean crash, OOS, and other BASIC 

violation rates than did the US-licensed non-LEP population. All differences were statistically 

significant at greater than a 95 percent confidence level. 

Figure 3 compares the ratio of the LEP to the non-LEP population for each safetyperformance rate category. Ratios above the baseline indicate that the LEP rate was higher 

than the non-LEP rate, while ratios below the baseline indicate that the non-LEP rate was 

lower than the LEP rate. 

Figure 3. Comparison of safety-performance 

rates for U.S.-licensed LEP and non-LEP CMV drivers 

The two rate categories showing the greatest proportional differences were the driver OOS 

rate and the Fatigued Driving BASIC violation rate. This implies that, on average, U.S.-

licensed LEP drivers were more than two times as likely to be placed out of service during a 

driver inspection and more than two times as likely to incur Fatigued-Driving violations than 

were U.S.-licensed non-LEP drivers. 

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

Crash Driver OOS Unsafe Driving Fatigued 

Driving

Driver Fitness Contr. Subst. Vehicle OOS Vehicle Maint. Improper 

Loading

Ratio LEP to Non-LEP

Rate Category

Vehicle-related 

Measures

Driver-related 

Measures

BASICs BASICs
23 

While the results indicated differences between LEP and non-LEP drivers, it is important to 

note that the analysis was not designed to identify the root cause of such differences. 

Therefore, the results do not imply a causal relationship between English proficiency and 

safety performance. Various contributing factors may exist that impact the differences in the 

rate categories between the two populations. Further examination of these factors is important 

to gain a fuller understanding of the issue of English proficiency and safe CMV operation. 

2.1.4 Summary 

Examination of the inspection, violation, and crash records of carriers and drivers provides 

insight into the magnitude and scope of LEP as reported through FMCSA safety programs. In 

summary: 

In the 5-year period from June 2002 through June 2007, a total of 39,265 inspections reported 

an LEP violation. These violations were received by 11,911 carriers; of these: 

• 64 percent were U.S. domiciled and active as of June 2007. 

• 37 percent received more than one LEP violation. 

• 61 percent reported five or fewer power units. 

– Between 2005 and 2007: 

– The number of driver inspections reporting LEP violations decreased 

– The percentage of LEP violations reported as out of service (OOS) increased, 

coinciding with the release of the CVSA OOS standards on LEP. 

• The reporting rate of LEP varied dramatically among the States, the District of 

Columbia, and on the U.S. border, with localities reporting LEP in a maximum of 1.6 

percent of driver inspections. 

• The reporting of LEP as OOS varied dramatically among the States, District of 

Columbia, and on the U.S. border, with localities reporting a maximum of 54 percent 

of LEP violations as creating an OOS condition. 

2.2 OBSERVATIONS 

2.2.1 Overview 

The study team observed CMV drivers during their daily working hours and at roadside 

inspections to identify the circumstances and specific tasks for which language 

comprehension was required. The term comprehension in this case refers to any form of 

reading, writing, speaking, or listening; it was preferred to the term proficiency, as the latter 

implies a judgment about driver competencies. The results of the observations formed the 

basis for developing an inventory of tasks requiring language comprehension. 

2.2.2 Approach/Methodology 

The study team conducted ride-alongs with U.S.-based CMV large-truck and passengercarrier drivers during their regular shifts and also observed driver and vehicle inspections. All 
24 

observations were conducted over a 4-month period, from March through July 2007, 

throughout the United States. 

Observation teams comprised one to four observers, depending on conditions. Having more 

than one observer per event allowed for more robust data collection and interpretation since 

observations were based on more than one individual’s understanding of an event. In all 

cases, observers were asked to record the tasks performed by drivers that required some level 

of language comprehension. The list was supplemented by a narrative that described the tasks 

or the specific situations surrounding them in more detail. Observers were instructed not to 

disturb the drivers and inspectors during their work activities but to capture their actions and 

conversations throughout the day. These recorded observations were used to develop the task 

inventory. 

2.2.2.1 Ride-along Observations 

Ride-along observations were made by study team members accompanying large-truck or 

passenger-carrier drivers during the course of their regular shifts. For the large-truck ridealongs, tasks performed during the pre-trip, enroute, and post-trip portions were observed, 

including those executed during delivery and pick-up of goods. Only one observer was 

present for the large-truck ride-alongs due to constraints on cab space. The ride-alongs ranged 

from approximately 8 to 10 hours. 

For the passenger-carrier ride-alongs, observers met the driver en route at a regularly 

scheduled stop and departed elsewhere on the route; therefore, no pre-trip or post-trip 

activities were recorded. There were no space constraints for these ride-alongs, so two 

observers were present. The observation times ranged from 4 to 6 hours. 

The focus of the observation was on tasks performed by drivers that required language 

comprehension. While the purpose of this portion of the project was to understand the safety 

impacts of limited English proficiency, it was also important to document tasks that required 

any language use. 

Motor carriers throughout the United States and spanning a variety of industries were selected 

to participate in the ride-alongs on the basis of a number of criteria and methodologies. 

Participating motor carriers included companies with long-standing relationships with the 

study team, those recommended by other companies, and those suggested from FMCSA 

Division Administrators (DAs). 

Each ride-along required a high level of coordination with the participating motor carrier. 

Details that needed to be arranged included the choice of an appropriate meeting time and 

place and the resolution of any applicable legal issues (generally those regarding rider 

liability). In some cases, negotiations with motor carriers failed and other carriers were invited 

to participate in the study instead. 

A total of eight ride-alongs were conducted, six involving large trucks and two involving 

passenger carriers. Information on participating companies and carriers, origins and 

destinations, and types of trips is provided in Table 9. 
25 

2.2.2.2 Inspection Observations 

Inspection observations involved spending a shift at various locations and watching the 

interactions between drivers and safety inspectors. As with the ride-along observations, 

particular attention was paid to driver tasks that required language comprehension. Data were 

collected by a team of two to four observers, who traveled to the pre-specified location and 

remained there for 4 to 8 hours. 

These firsthand observations were used to create an inventory of tasks requiring language 

comprehension. Capturing the context in which the tasks were performed provides a better 

understanding of the specific situations that arise and the potential safety impacts of limited 

English-language comprehension. 
26 

Table 9. Information on the Eight Ride-Along Observations, by Type of Company 

Type and Name of 

Company 

Services Provided by 

Company 

Base of 

Operations 

Origin, Destination, and 

Type of Trip 

CFI, Inc. (Contract 

Freighters, Inc.) 

Provides tractor-trailer 

service throughout 

North America 

5 US terminals Several delivery stops in 

Laredo, TX 

CVS Distributes products for 

retail pharmacy chain 

~6,200 stores in 38 

States 

One ride-along in Austin, 

TX, and one in La Habra, 

CA, each consisting of 

several delivery stops 

Haney Truck Line Irregular-route carrier; 

carries products from 

many different 

industries, including 

hazmat 

Pacific Northwest Roundtrip between 

Oregon and Washington, 

with mail deliveries (to 

USPS facility in Tacoma, 

WA, and Seattle Bulk 

Mail Center in Federal 

Way, WA), and pick-up of 

shipment from soft-drink 

company in Tukwila, WA 

Jet Express Handles >500 

truckloads per day 

throughout US, 

primarily for “just-intime” auto industry 

5 terminals, 

including home 

terminal in Dayton, 

OH 

Roundtrip between 

Dayton and Toledo, OH 

Petroleum Transport Distributes light-oil 

products for Chevron, 

Exxon, and Ashland, 

and line of lubricants 

and greases for 

Chevron, Mobil, Exxon, 

and Conoco 

5 warehouse 

locations in VA and 

WV 

Originating in Nitro, WV; 

included deliveries of 

low-grade diesel to two 

coal-mining facilities (in 

Boone and Kanawha 

Counties) and stop at 

diesel terminal to reload 

C&J Trailways Commuter bus Connects 

Newburyport, MA, 

and two NH 

communities to 

Boston/Logan 

Airport 

From Boston to Dover, 

NH 

Megabus USA Low-cost Routes in 14 

midwestern cities, 

with Chicago as 

hub of operations 

Between Cincinnati, OH 

and Chicago 

 
27 

States for roadside-inspection observations were selected to represent a variety of geographic, 

demographic, and regulatory characteristics, such as: 

• Location/region. 

Level and frequency of reporting of §391.11(b)(2) violations in the past 5 years (see 

Table 4)18 . 

• Potential for observing drivers with limited English proficiency. 

• Whether the State had been identified for the interview portion of this project. 

The States of Texas, Arizona, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Ohio were selected for 

roadside-inspection observations, for reasons summarized below. 

• Texas, which has a major border crossing between the United States and Mexico, was 

selected because of its high number of reported violations of §391.11(b)(2)—9,610 in 

5 years.19 Therefore, its likelihood of having drivers with limited English proficiency 

was high compared with that of other States. Because Texas was also selected for the 

interview portion of this project, it was thought that observations of its approach to 

enforcement of §391.11(b)(2) could provide insight for the interviews. 

Arizona has the second-highest number of reported violations of §391.11(b)(2) and the 

nation’s highest percentage of inspections with a §391.11(b)(2) violation, 1.61 percent (see 

• Table 4). Therefore, the likelihood of inspections involving drivers with limited 

English proficiency being observed was higher than it would be in other States. 

• Maryland has the fifth-highest level of §391.11(b)(2) reporting as well as the highest 

percentage of inspections citing §391.11(b)(2) violations that resulted in an OOS 

order, 53.53 percent. Therefore, it offered the opportunity to observe factors 

contributing to inspectors’ decisions to place drivers out of service and increased the 

geographic scope of the observations. 

• New Hampshire was selected to provide geographic balance to the roadside-inspection 

observations. This State has a high prevalence of motor carriers traveling between 

Canada, Boston, and New York City. 

• Ohio was selected to provide geographic and demographic balance to the roadsideinspection observations. 

Locations for observations of passenger-carrier inspections, known as destination inspections,

were determined by contacting the States that conducted the highest number of such 

inspections each year. Two locations were selected, one in Arizona and the other in 

Minnesota. 

 

18 Further information can be found in the Data Analysis section (2.1) of this report. 19 See the Data Analysis section (2.1.2.2, State Reporting) of this report. 
28 

Inspection observations were derived from roadside inspections of large trucks and 

destination inspections of passenger carriers. The study team contacted the FMCSA DA in 

each State for assistance in scheduling and arranging other logistics for the observation 

periods. Often, the DA put study team staff in contact with their State counterparts, who then 

helped to arrange a variety of observation experiences. One State, Texas, provided the 

opportunity to observe differences between inspections that were near the border and those 

that were not (e.g., those in central Texas). Table 10 summarizes the eight observed 

inspections. 

Table 10. Information on the Eight Inspection Observations, by Type of Company 

State Inspection Location Enforcement 

Agency 

Inspection Details 

Arizona Large Trucks Rest area on I-19 

northbound near 

Tucson 

Arizona 

Department of 

Public Safety 

Two-day concentrated 

enforcement effort; all 

CMVs had to exit 

interstate via rest area; 

flagged for inspection 

after driver-inspector 

interaction 

Maryland Large Trucks Weigh station on I-95 

southbound near 

Perrysville, MD 

Maryland State 

Police 

Part of regularly 

scheduled enforcement 

activities 

New Hampshire Large 

Trucks 

Weigh station on I-93 

southbound near 

Windham 

New Hampshire 

Department of 

Safety 

Part of regularly 

scheduled enforcement 

activities 

Ohio Large Trucks Weigh station on I-71 

southbound near 

Wilmington 

Ohio State 

Highway Patrol 

Part of regularly 

scheduled enforcement 

activities 

Texas Large Trucks Laredo (on US-Mexican 

border) 

Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety 

Administration 

Part of regularly 

scheduled enforcement 

activities 

Texas Large Trucks San Marcos (central)

weigh station on I-35 

southbound 

Texas Department 

of Public Safety 

Part of regularly 

scheduled enforcement 

activities 

Arizona Passenger 

Carriers 

Grand Canyon National 

Park 

Arizona 

Department of 

Public Safety and 

US National Park 

Service 

One-day joint operation; 

inspections conducted on 

all passenger carriers 

arriving at South Rim of 

park 

Minnesota Passenger 

Carriers 

Minneapolis at the 

Metrodome and in 

downtown area 

Minnesota State 

Patrol 

Inspections of all 

passenger carriers 

entering Metrodome 

parking lot on two 

consecutive evenings; 

additional, mobile 

inspections throughout 

downtown Minneapolis 
29 

2.2.3 Task-Analysis Results 

The focus of the observations was to determine the extent to which drivers engage in tasks 

that require language comprehension. These observations provide a starting point for 

understanding the different language-comprehension tasks that may need to be performed. It 

is important to note that not all drivers who were observed performed all listed tasks because 

some tasks were specific to a particular company or industry. For example, a driver carrying a 

hazmat load from one site to another performed different activities from those of a large-truck 

driver delivering pharmaceuticals from store to store. 

The observations focus on language comprehension in general rather than on tasks that 

specifically require English proficiency. The need to be proficient in English to perform the 

tasks is discussed in more detail following the tables. The task descriptions are general; for 

example, rather than identify each specific traffic sign that a driver may have seen, the 

corresponding activity in the task list is “Read traffic signs.” Specific instances of the task are 

considered in order to assess its complexity and potential safety impact under the different 

circumstances in which it may be performed. 

2.2.3.1 Results of Large-Truck Ride-alongs 

The pre-trip activities listed below highlight the need to be able to read and write in order to 

complete paperwork. Some of this paperwork is required to comply with FMCSA regulations, 

such as keeping a logbook, and must be updated throughout the day. Other paperwork, such 

as the bill of lading, provides instructions to the driver and lists trip destinations. It is 

important that drivers be able to read sufficiently to understand and note any errors in the 

information they are given, as some companies require drivers to provide a signature 

accepting responsibility and liability for load contents. 

While driving is primarily a physical act, the truck cab contains substantial amounts of written 

information that the driver must understand in order to operate the vehicle effectively. The 

driver must be able to read and operate the primary and secondary controls and various 

instruments. For example, a series of identical-looking switches on the dashboard may be 

distinguishable only by their labels, and instructions for flares, safety triangles, and fire 

extinguishers may be read for the first time during an emergency. 

Ride-alongs: Observed Tasks Performed by Large-Truck Drivers That Require 

Language Comprehension 

Pre-Trip Activities 

• Complete pre-trip inspection form. 

• Make logbook entry. 

• Read bill of lading and other paperwork regarding load and content. 

• Read paperwork providing location of and directions to delivery/pick-up stations. 

• Read and interpret maps and/or directions provided to plan trip. 

 
30 

En-Route Activities 

• Drive to delivery stop. 

• Read and operate primary and secondary controls and instruments. 

• Read traffic signs (permanent and temporary; stationary, dynamic, and variable 

messages) pertaining to parameters such as speed limits, traffic conditions, 

construction areas, and lane restrictions. 

• Communicate with other drivers and dispatchers through communication devices such 

as radios, cell phones, and computer-input devices. 

• Listen to radio to obtain information (e.g., on weather and traffic conditions). 

• Arrive at store or receiving/shipping facility. 

• Read safety procedures/policies of facility. 

• Talk to security personnel (sometimes through intercom) to gain access to facility. 

• Update logbook (electronic or paper) to note arrival at destination. 

• Communicate with facility representative (e.g., store manager) regarding delivery 

details such as parking location and load. 

• Unload truck. 

• Count and check off number of items (e.g., totes or pallets). 

• Sign bill of lading. 

• Depart for next stop. 

• Ask for directions to next location. 

• Call dispatcher or store manager at next stop to provide status information (e.g., 

whether driver is ahead of/behind schedule or is en route). 

• Update logbook (electronic or paper) to indicate change in duty status. 

• Sign paperwork to accept responsibility for contents and delivery 

Post-Trip Activities 

• Complete logbook.

• Announce return to dispatcher.

• Write up and submit repair request.

It also highlights the need for the driver to be able to read traffic signs and other safety 

information while en route. Most traffic signs are standard, including those providing 

information about speed limits, stops, and freeway entrances and exits. While the shape and 

color of the sign, and its icons, convey some information, knowledge of English may still be 

required to understand its content. For example, freeway entrances and exits are typically 

marked on green rectangular signs, but the driver must be able to read the sign in order to 
31 

identify the correct entrances and exits. The concern is whether drivers who may not be 

proficient in the English language are able to respond in a timely manner if they encounter 

unfamiliar or variable-message signs (VMS) that provide valuable information regarding road 

conditions. Road conditions are dynamic, and drivers must be able to identify and react to 

construction signs, closed exits, detours, and accidents. The task of reading and 

comprehending, combined with high freeway speeds and the inability for large trucks to make 

sudden movements, require that drivers be ready to react. 

Upon reaching the receiving or shipping facility, the driver may encounter signs detailing 

special procedures for delivery. Unlike most signs encountered en route, these signs may be 

nonstandard and specific to the facility. For hazmat operations, it is especially important that 

drivers be able to read signs that describe required actions and to respond appropriately. 

The other tasks listed indicate that drivers interact frequently with others, including other 

drivers, store managers, dispatchers, and security personnel. While the messages conveyed in 

some of these interactions are important, it must be emphasized that not all of the interactions 

occur in English. For example, one observer noted that a driver making deliveries in Laredo 

often communicated with store managers in Spanish rather than English. Regional or 

industry-specific needs can influence the level of English needed by a CMV driver. What is 

important is that drivers are able to communicate with others with use of a common language. 

It was of interest to determine whether the task inventory was comprehensive, since a limited 

number of ride-alongs (eight) were conducted and they covered a wide variety of operations. 

Consequently, observers may have captured only a glimpse of the activities that large-truck 

drivers perform on a typical day. A comparison of the observations collected during the 

various ride-alongs highlighted differences in the nature of operations for each carrier and 

each type of load. 

To evaluate the validity of the observations, the task list was compared with tasks listed by the 

Professional Truck Driver Institute (PTDI),20 with a focus on tasks that could require 

language comprehension. Many of the skills described by PTDI addressed physical tasks, 

such as vehicle inspection or basic vehicle control. 

A task identified by PTDI as requiring language comprehension but not included in the Volpe 

Center task inventory was that of dealing with accident scenes and reporting procedures. 

According to PTDI, if an accident occurs, the driver must be able to alert police and provide 

the appropriate officials with details. The driver must also be able to clean up any spilled 

cargo and, if hazmat is involved, to notify the appropriate authorities. This task reflects the 

need to communicate during emergency situations, although no such events were observed 

during the ride-alongs. Emergencies such as breakdowns and accidents occur infrequently, but 

when they do take place it is important that the driver be able to interact effectively with the 

public and with enforcement and emergency personnel. The nature of these interactions can 

be quite complex and can require a certain level of language proficiency, particularly if the 

circumstances surrounding the accident must be explained. 

 

20 Skill Standards for Entry-Level Tractor-Trailer Drivers, 1999. 
32 

2.2.3.2 Results of Passenger-Carrier Ride-alongs 

Tasks performed by passenger-carrier drivers that require language comprehension are listed 

below. It is important to note that these observations began en route at regularly scheduled 

stops. Consequently, no activities performed by the driver at the origin of the trip, such as 

completing a pre-trip inspection form or making a logbook entry, were recorded. 

Before a trip begins, the driver must read and understand the safety policies at the terminal or 

stop; signs may vary in complexity and familiarity, ranging from “No Parking” to the more 

detailed “No Idling Over 5 Minutes.” English proficiency may be needed to comprehend and 

obey both standard and nonstandard signs. 

Ride-alongs: Observed Tasks Performed by Passenger-Carrier Drivers That Require 

Language Comprehension 

Pre-Trip Activities 

• Read terminal safety policies and signs (e.g., “No idling over 5 minutes”). 

En-Route Activities 

• Pick up passengers. 

• Welcome passengers onboard (e.g., invite passengers to board, provide introductions). 

• Explain procedures: provide instructions regarding luggage storage, cell-phone usage, 

and smoking; identify locations (e.g., of restrooms or trash receptacles); advise 

passengers to use caution when moving around while vehicle is in transit; explain 

actions required during emergencies. 

• Answer passengers’ questions. 

• Inform passengers about stops and final destination. 

• Depart for destination. 

• Read traffic signs (permanent and temporary; stationary, dynamic, and variable 

messages) pertaining to parameters such as speed limits, traffic conditions, 

construction areas, and lane restrictions. 

• Communicate with other drivers and dispatcher through devices such as radios, cell 

phones, and computer-input devices. 

• Communicate with passengers (e.g., respond to their questions and issues). 

• Stop for break. 

• Make intermittent announcements (e.g., of a lunch stop). 

• Provide passengers with information (e.g., time for reboarding). 

• Announce departure and time remaining in journey. 

• Arrive at destination. 
33 

• Announce arrival and state current stop. 

• Thank passengers for traveling with the company. 

• Instruct passengers to take their personal belongings and tell them how to retrieve their 

luggage. 

• Assist passengers in identifying their luggage. 

En route, drivers of passenger carriers interact extensively with passengers and with drivers of 

other vehicles. Initially, the driver greets passengers, explains procedures, answers any 

questions, and conveys information about the stops and the final destination. The complexity 

of this interaction may vary; greetings may be fairly simple and standard, whereas effectively 

communicating the passenger carrier’s procedures may be more involved. In particular, the 

driver must be clear in cautioning passengers to avoid moving around while the vehicle is in 

transit and in providing instructions about what to do in the event of an emergency. 

Depending on the complexity of the instructions, some passengers may have questions, to 

which the driver must be able to respond. 

The importance of being able to communicate effectively with passengers was highlighted 

during one ride-along when passengers complained of a smell of fumes and a buzzing alarmtype noise. The driver assured the passengers that he would look into these issues. He tried to 

reach the company several times while on the road. He then pulled the vehicle over and 

discovered that the fumes and alarm were due to a gas cap not being properly seated. He was 

able to fix the problem and to continue on the route. During the incident, observers noted that 

the driver provided passengers with information regarding whom to contact to complain about 

the problem. While this problem was fairly minor, the importance of being able to 

communicate with passengers would become more significant in a critical, emergency 

situation. 

During a trip, the driver continues to interact with passengers, providing intermittent 

announcements. For example, if a break stop occurs, the driver must tell passengers the 

duration of the stop and the time by which they must reboard. 

Upon reaching the destination, the driver may make an announcement to passengers, thanking 

them for their patronage. The driver then should remind passengers to collect their personal 

belongings and should instruct them on how to collect their other luggage. As part of this task, 

the driver may assist passengers in identifying their luggage. 

Most interactions with passengers will require some degree of English proficiency, but these 

interactions will vary greatly in complexity. While en route, the driver may talk with dispatch 

personnel or others on a phone or radio, but this conversation does not necessarily need to be 

in English; it requires only a common language. 

Drivers of passenger carriers must also communicate with drivers of other vehicles. Typically, 

this communication involves the obeying of traffic laws, such as signaling an intention to 

change lanes, but it also requires that the driver be able to read and respond to traffic signs. As 

noted earlier, signs may vary in complexity and familiarity, and some English proficiency 

may be needed to respond in a timely manner. 
34 

The tasks listed vary in the level of language comprehension that they require and in the 

safety impacts of performing them incompletely or incorrectly, but there are important safety 

implications for two tasks in particular: the ability to read and respond to road signs in a 

timely manner, and the ability to provide passengers with instructions during an emergency. 

Both tasks highlight the need for effective language comprehension. In addition to their own 

safety and that of people in other vehicles, passenger-carrier drivers are entrusted with their 

passengers’ safety. 

2.2.3.3 Results of Large-Truck and Passenger-Carrier Inspections 

The actual selection of a driver or vehicle for an inspection is often made without any action 

being required on the driver’s part. While the selection process can vary from State to State 

and from inspector to inspector, the inspection process itself varies little. Therefore, the task 

analysis focused on the responsibilities of large-truck and passenger-carrier drivers during an 

inspection rather than on the inspectors. 

Tasks performed during an inspection that require language comprehension by both largetruck and passenger-carrier drivers are listed below. It underscores the extensive amount of 

interaction required during an inspection. Much of this interaction involves the driver 

responding to the inspector’s commands and questions. 

Observed Tasks Performed by Large-Truck and Passenger-Carrier Inspection Drivers 

That Require Language Comprehension 

Driver Component 

• Respond to inspector’s questions (e.g., tell inspector if vehicle is carrying passengers 

or co-drivers and advise with regard to load type and size and origin/destination). 

• Confirm if vehicle is carrying any hazmat. 

• Communicate with inspector to gain understanding of why vehicle is undergoing 

inspection. 

• Confirm if vehicle has been inspected in recent past. 

• Give inspector logbook and other paperwork (license, medical card, bills of lading, 

insurance, registration papers, gas receipts) as requested. 

Vehicle Component 

• Follow inspector’s instructions to: 

• Pull over or park. 

• Open doors. 

• Show fire extinguisher and other safety devices. 

• Open hood. 

• Start engine. 

• Put vehicle in neutral 
35 

• Pull emergency brake. 

• Place key in specific position in ignition. 

• Honk horn. 

• Activate right- and left-turn indicators. 

• Turn on lights (high- and low-beam). 

• Turn on windshield wipers. 

• Engage and hold brakes. 

• Release brakes and pressure. 

• Rotate wheels to right and left. 

• Release brakes while wheels are rotated. 

• Rotate steering wheel. 

• Turn off engine. 

• Open emergency windows (passenger carriers only). 

Post-Inspection Activities 

• Meet with inspector to: 

• Answer remaining questions about logbook, work hours, lease agreement, etc. 

• Provide additional paperwork. 

• Review violations and citations 

• Sign inspection papers. 

• Respond to inspection outcome as needed (e.g., update logbook, contact company, 

arrange for repairs). 

Typically, the inspector starts by conducting the driver component of an inspection. The 

inspector asks the driver what he or she is carrying, explains the inspection process, and 

examines the driver’s paperwork, including license, medical card, bills of lading, insurance, 

and registration. The driver’s ability to communicate effectively can facilitate the inspection. 

some drivers are not trained in the inspection process, and many are not familiar with the 

paperwork that they are required to present—they may simply have submitted a stack of 

papers for the inspector to sort through. The process of going through the paperwork often 

leads to a dialogue between the inspector and the driver, aimed at helping the inspector to 

understand what is being examined. 

The driver’s ability to read, write, and speak English also helps the inspector to assess driver 

fatigue. The driver’s logbook provides one measure for checking whether the driver is getting 

appropriate rest, but if the driver does not understand English and therefore cannot mark what 

is required, the inspector may be unable to make an accurate assessment. Even if the driver 

understands some English, the logbook inspection often requires a constant dialogue between 
36 

the driver and the inspector, and this process can be difficult if the driver is unable to 

comprehend specific questions. 

The inspector may also conduct an inspection of the vehicle, during which the driver is told to 

perform specific tasks, such as opening the hood, starting the engine, putting the vehicle into 

neutral, and honking the horn. 

It is worthwhile to note the importance of good communication between the inspector and the 

driver during a vehicle inspection. As part of the process, the inspector often must move 

behind and underneath the vehicle and is therefore not visible to the driver, who is waiting for 

instructions. Consequently, a misinterpreted instruction could have important safety 

implications. Miscommunication is not limited to interactions between drivers and inspectors 

who speak different languages. For example, during an inspection in Laredo, Texas, one 

observer noted a miscommunication between an inspector and a driver who both spoke 

Spanish. The inspector, who was standing next to the driver, asked the driver to open the 

hood. The driver did so without realizing that the inspector wanted to conduct further 

examination under the hood and tried to close it immediately, narrowly missing the inspector. 

Post-inspection, the inspector reviews the inspection report and (if applicable) the OOS order 

with the driver. It is important that the driver understand the information being conveyed by 

the inspector so that he or she can take appropriate action. 

2.2.4 Summary 

The broad and varied use of language in CMV operations has important safety implications. 

In addition to its safety benefits, ease of communication aids drivers, inspectors, passengers, 

and facility operators. While the analyses focused on the importance of language 

comprehension, several tasks presented in the tables highlight the need for English 

proficiency for CMV operations in the United States. 

• In particular, the driver’s ability to read, understand, and respond to road signs in a 

timely manner is critical. Lack of English proficiency may lead to a failure to respond 

to nonstandard signage, such as VMS or custom signs at facilities, thus posing a safety 

hazard. 

• Emergencies occur infrequently, but when they do, it is important that the driver be 

able to interact effectively with enforcement and emergency personnel as well as with 

the public. These interactions can be quite complex and can require a certain level of 

language proficiency. 

• Drivers should have sufficient language comprehension in order to be able to update 

and complete their logbooks. This task is required by FMCSA regulations, and while 

it may not have a direct impact on safety, the logbook provides the inspector with 

information on driver fitness and compliance with HOS regulations. 

Finally, the observations highlight the need for drivers to be able to communicate effectively 

with inspectors. Inspectors performing vehicle inspections subject themselves to potentially 

dangerous conditions, and it is important that drivers understand what inspectors are doing so 

that mishaps can be prevented. 
37 

2.3 INTERVIEWS 

2.3.1 Overview 

For the third portion of this study, the authors interviewed various stakeholder groups to 

obtain information on the following: 

• The extent to which interviewees—selected Federal and State personnel; safety 

associations and public interest groups; individual drivers, carriers, and motor carrier 

industry associations; and independent owner-operators—believe that a driver’s 

proficiency in the English language is necessary for the safe operation of CMVs. 

• How they interpret the current FMCSA regulation, and how they think that a driver’s 

level of English proficiency could be assessed during the hiring process, in the daily 

work environment, and during inspections. 

• Their opinions on whether the English language proficiency regulation, as currently 

written, can be applied in a uniform manner while avoiding the potential for 

discrimination against individuals for whom English is a foreign language. 

Because the study was intended to be a scoping exercise, the interviews were limited in 

number and designed to produce qualitative findings rather than numerical material suitable 

for quantitative analysis. 

2.3.2 Approach/Methodology 

2.3.2.1 Stakeholder Categories and Interview Targets 

For the preliminary assessment, FMCSA limited the number of interviews. After discussions 

with FMCSA, the following list of interview targets was generated. 

Federal Agencies 

Regulatory agencies with CMV interests: 

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (with regard to the use of English on signs 

covered by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD]). 

Agencies with other industry oversight in which English proficiency could be a consideration: 

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Associations 

• Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). 

• International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). 
38 

• American Trucking Association (ATA). 

• Truckload Carriers Association (TCA). 

• National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC). 

• Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). 

• American Bus Association (ABA). 

• United Motor Coach Association (UMCA). 

• American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). 

• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 

Public Interest Groups 

• Public Citizen. 

• Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). 

• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 

State Agencies 

• Enforcement and safety agencies. 

• CMV licensure agencies. 

• Highway agencies concerned with signage. 

Motor Carriers and Drivers 

• Company officials from motor carriers (including passenger carriers), with 

consideration given to geographic distribution and size of operations.

• Drivers from these companies. 

• Independent owner-operators . 

2.3.2.2 Strategy: A Phased Approach 

After compiling a preliminary list of interview targets, the authors determined the order in 

which to contact them. Agencies and organizations, and the primary information that could be 

obtained from them, fell into two categories: 

• Government regulators, related professional associations, and safety-oriented public 

interest groups: Information on how the regulation was being implemented; their 

viewpoints regarding what was/was not working, and why; and their thoughts about 

the status quo and what could be done to improve it. 

• The regulated industries (motor carriers): Input on how they were attempting to 

comply with the regulation; their response to enforcement activity; their perspective 
39 

on what was/was not working, and why; and their thoughts on what could be done to 

improve the situation. 

Before starting the interview phase, the interview team reviewed in depth the history of the 

regulation and the docket from the 1997 ANPRM. The team researched the general 

background of each agency and organization to be interviewed and any specific involvement 

or interest in the English-language proficiency of CMV drivers. 

On this basis of the information acquired through this initial background research, the 

interview process was divided into three phases. Each phase was designed to add 

incrementally to the considerations that would be built into the next phase. 

Phase I 

Phase I interview targets fell into two categories. The first category consisted of regulatory 

and enforcement entities, including: 

• Federal agencies directly involved with motor carrier regulation and enforcement. 

• Other Federal agencies that may have taken different approaches to comparable 

challenges. 

• State and local enforcement bodies as represented by CVSA and IACP . 

The second category consisted of associations representing the regulated industries: ATA, 

NTTC, TCA, ABA, and UMCA. The intent in speaking to representatives from these groups 

was to obtain a look into the industry and the business environment. 

Phase II 

At the completion of Phase I, the interview team consolidated its findings along major themes 

and developed questions to be posed to interview contacts in Phase II. Interview contacts in 

this phase included personnel from State agencies responsible for CMV regulation and 

enforcement, issuance of CDLs, and highway signage. The goals of this phase were to: 

• Ascertain whether and how selected States were implementing the languageproficiency regulation. 

• Understand how State processes for licensing commercial drivers worked, and, in 

particular, learn how they dealt with applicants whose primary language was not 

English. 

• Determine language considerations pertaining to both fixed signs and DMS. 

The interview team researched each State’s approach to CMV enforcement to better 

determine which agencies and individuals could provide the most substantive information. 

At the close of Phase II, the team again discussed its findings and then consolidated them into 

a matrix to support comparison of the States’ approaches. 

Phase III 
40 

In Phase III, the focus of the interviews shifted from the regulators to the regulated: individual 

motor carriers and drivers. These interviews drew on collective insights gained from the 

previous background research and interviews. 

2.3.2.3 Methods 

The overall approach to conducting the interviews is described below. 

Interview Prospects 

For each category of contact, a list of specific agencies and individuals was submitted to 

FMCSA for prior approval. Substitute agencies and individuals were identified and contacted 

as needed. 

Interviewers 

The authors assembled a team of five interviewers with experience in telephone interviewing. 

Team members received additional training in specific techniques needed for effective 

qualitative interviewing. 

Questionnaires and Invitations to Interview 

Each category of contact had its own questionnaire; Federal agencies had separate, targeted 

questionnaires. Inputs to questionnaire development included past questions and comments 

that had been posed to FMCSA or raised in the 1997 ANPRM, a literature search for 

narratives and news stories on relevant events, and information from ride-alongs and 

inspections derived from the observations part of this study. 

Questionnaires were developed in two forms: an interviewer version, which included 

highlighted probe questions, and an interviewee version, expunged of the probes. Draft 

questionnaires and invitation letters were submitted for FMCSA review, modified if 

requested, and finalized. These submissions and reviews took place on a rolling basis. 

Invitation letters were distributed via email and included a “respond by” date; follow-up by 

email and telephone was conducted as necessary. After an interview prospect accepted the 

invitation, the interviewer arranged a specific date and time for the interview and sent a 

confirming email with the questionnaire attached. 

Interviews 

All interviews were conducted by telephone. Typically, interviews were conducted by a twoperson team in order to enhance active listening and follow-up during the process, to enable 

extensive notes to be obtained in real time, and to lay the basis for a cross-checking of 

understanding and interpretation during the later analysis. 

Interview Records 

For interviews involving extensive note-taking, the note-taker was responsible for generating 

a clean draft of the interview. The primary interviewer then reviewed and made changes to 

correct and augment the record as needed. Discrepancies in interviewers’ interpretations and 
41 

gaps in relation to the interviewee’s responses were noted. The interviewee was then 

contacted by email or telephone for clarification, and the responses were entered into the final 

record. 

Analysis of Interviews 

For each interview phase, the written results for respondents were reviewed by all interview 

team members and then discussed and analyzed for congruent and differing opinions. 

2.3.3 Phase I Interviews: Federal Agencies, Associations, and Interest Groups 

Phase interview subjects were Federal Government regulators and contacts from professional 

associations and safety-oriented public interest groups. The Federal interviewees provided 

valuable background information, along with insight into how other Federal regulatory 

agencies deal with similar language needs in other regulated industries. Additional 

information included how the regulation was being implemented; viewpoints regarding what 

was and was not working, and why; and thoughts on the status quo and what could be done to 

improve it. 

2.3.3.1 Approach/Methodology 

Federal Interview Contacts 

The interview team developed the list of specific Federal interview targets in collaboration 

with FMCSA. Table 11 shows the final list of interviewees’ agencies and departments and the 

interview dates. 

Table 11. Federal Interview Contacts 

Agency Department Date of 

Interview 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) 

• Commercial Drivers License 

• Western Service Center 

• Commercial Passenger Carrier 

Safety 

• North American Borders 

• 3/6/07 

• 3/6/07 

• 3/7/07 

• 3/16/07 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

Office of Hazardous Materials 

Safety/Enforcement 

03/7/07 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) 

MUTCD 03/28/07 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Locomotive Engineer Certification 03/19/07 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • FAA–Long Beach Flight Standards 

District Office 

• Linguistics Consultant to the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) 

• 04/19/07

• 03/16/07

Association Interview Contacts 
42 

The associations to be interviewed were largely specified from the outset by FMCSA. In order 

to identify the most knowledgeable individuals within each organization, the team went to the 

organizations’ Web sites; names were also solicited from and informally validated with the 

Federal interviewees. The list of proposed contacts was then vetted with FMCSA before the 

team proceeded further. Table 12 shows the final list of associations, the expertise of the 

interview contacts, and the interview dates. 

Table 12. Association Interview Contacts 

Association Area of Specialization Date of 

Interview

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Policy and Programs 4/26/07 

International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP) 

IACP Research Center 

Directorate 

04/27/07 

American Trucking Associations (ATA) Safety 04/30/07 

National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) Association Management 04/30/07 

Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) Safety 05/3/07 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association (OOIDA) 

Regulatory Affairs 05/1/07 

United Motor Coach Association (UMCA) Industry Relations 04/23/07 

American Bus Association (ABA) Regulatory and Industry Affairs 05/4/07 

American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators (AAMVA) 

Driver Programs 05/8/07 

AASHTO (with regard to MUTCD) Engineering and MUTCD 05/14/07 

Public Interest Groups 

Table 13 shows the final list of public interest groups that were interviewed, the expertise of 

the interview contacts, and the interview dates. 

Table 13. Public Interest Group Interview Contacts 

Group Area of 

Specialization 

Date of Interview 

Public Citizen Consumer safety Cancelled by interviewee21

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Research 05/18/07 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Research 05/25/07 

2.3.3.2 Results 

The interviews conducted with Federal staff and contacts from professional associations and 

public-interest groups provided a broad array of preliminary insights into the issues, factors, 

and considerations involving LEP among CMV drivers. These results also generated many 

 

21 The day before the scheduled interview, the interviewee’s assistant informed the interviewers that the interviewee would be on travel 

and unable to participate but had reviewed the comments of the interviewee from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and concurred 

completely with those positions. 
43 

questions to be explored in subsequent interviews with State enforcement, licensure, and 

signage officials and with motor carriers and drivers in the trucking and passenger-carrier 

industries. 

What follows is a summary of key discussions with interviewees by topic. The information is 

qualitative in nature and is based on interviewees’ experiences with and understanding of the 

topic. 

Prevalence of languages other than English 

The MCMIS data on LEP violations as presented in 

Table 4 imply that CMV drivers lacking English proficiency are on the road. The first 

question that the interview team sought to answer was: What languages other than English are 

primary to some CMV drivers? 

Interviews were conducted in the early spring of 2007; at this time, the Administration’s effort 

to launch the NAFTA cross-border demonstration project was under challenge in Congress 

and the courts and was receiving coverage in the popular and trade press. When asked about 

English-language proficiency among CMV drivers, a number of interviewees brought up the 

demonstration project immediately, offering opinions and concerns regarding Spanishspeaking drivers at the southern border. 

After interviewers clarified that the study was looking broadly at language proficiency among 

drivers operating in all areas of the United States, interviewees mentioned languages in 

addition to Spanish that they or their organizations were aware of. Interviewees from FMCSA 

enforcement, CVSA, and IACP reported a substantial number of drivers from Eastern 

European bloc countries with limited or no English proficiency; ATA and OOIDA 

interviewees echoed this observation. Languages being spoken by these Eastern European 

drivers included Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, and “Bosnian.” Other languages and 

dialects encountered were Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), Haitian Creole, French, 

“Indian” (Punjabi), “Pakistani” (Urdu), Laotian, and Jamaican English. 

Extent of problem by industry sectors and size of operations 

There are numerous reports of a CMV driver shortage, but the trucking industry associations 

had different perspectives on whether or not this is actually the case. The carrier associations 

supported the contention; ATA had commissioned a research report on the subject.22 OOIDA 

was skeptical because of the high number of new drivers that it said seek CDLs each year. 

Interviews with industry association contacts gave the impression that the practice of 

employing drivers who lack English proficiency might not be uniform across industry sectors 

or similarly sized operations. 

• Trucking association interviewees said that hazmat carriers are likely to demand a 

higher level of proficiency because of the paperwork and other communications 

 

22 Global Insight for the American Trucking Associations. The US Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts. May 2005. 
44 

needed for safe operations, and that the additional testing required for a hazmat 

endorsement would weed out candidates who lacked English proficiency. 

• The OOIDA contact said that independent owner-operators tend to be seasoned drivers 

and that often, when another driver is needed, they find candidates by word of mouth 

or call on individuals they already know. The economics of running a small operation 

are such that hiring a driver who could be put out of service is regarded as risky: if, for 

example, an owner-operator runs three power units and the driver of one of them is put 

out of service, the proportional impact on the bottom line is huge. 

• Although passenger carriers face a driver shortage, language proficiency has not yet 

been a widespread issue. The business necessity of having a driver who can 

communicate constantly and in widely varying ways with passengers has kept many 

operators with English-speaking customers from hiring drivers who are not proficient 

in the language. The conspicuous exception has been a string of recent safety-related 

incidents involving culturally targeted carriers. 

The size of the operation, whether of a carrier of goods or of passengers, may also make a 

difference. Trucking association contacts described how some of their members screen job 

applicants, making use of recruiters or their human resource departments to identify problems 

early in the hiring process. After an applicant has been brought on board for additional 

training, the safety manager or training personnel will also watch for signs of language 

difficulty. These interviewees acknowledged, however, that even though this is the ideal 

scenario, smaller operators, who make up the majority of the industry, would not have the 

same capacity to screen out problem applicants. 

Language proficiency and safety 

Phase I interviewees spoke of three major areas of concern: 

• Safety of enforcement personnel. 

• Driver inability to communicate in emergency situations. 

• Driver inability to understand and respond to signage. 

Safety of enforcement personnel 

This concern was typically but not always the first mentioned by safety association and 

Federal interviewees. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was also at the top of the list for CVSA and 

IACP interviewees. It was a primary concern for some but not all Federal safety and 

enforcement interviewees. Interviewees offered a variety of anecdotes, usually describing 

instances in which an inspector had instructed a driver to do something and the driver clearly 

had not understood and had taken some inappropriate action that put the inspector at physical 

risk. The IACP interviewee noted that, in an enforcement stop, the driver’s response to the 

officer’s instruction has an effect on how the officer reacts; depending on the circumstances, a 

misunderstanding could be dangerous for both parties. 

The FMCSA field-staff interviewee had a somewhat skeptical perspective on the inspection 

anecdotes. As a former inspector and trainer of inspectors, his view was, “Why would you put 

yourself in that position?” His point was that it’s a matter of judgment: “If you’ve established 
45 

that the driver doesn’t communicate sufficiently well, why are you getting under that truck? 

Why would you do it if you didn’t think it was safe?” Inspections are not done in isolation; 

the inspector is in communication with the driver at all times. The contact recommended that 

the inspector put the driver out of service, park the truck, and wait until a driver who could 

speak English showed up. He concluded, “Is it a safety issue? Yes, but only because of a lack 

of due diligence.” 

Driver inability to communicate in emergency situations 

Interviewees’ concerns about driver inability to communicate in emergency situations fell into 

two categories: the ability of CMV drivers to communicate with emergency response 

personnel in the event of a hazmat incident, and communication by passenger-carrier drivers 

with passengers in an emergency situation. 

The PHMSA interviewee relayed his understanding of situations that arise along the southern 

border, especially at Laredo, where vehicles come into the United States from Mexico. He 

said that some drivers do not speak or read English and the shipping documents are in 

English; such drivers do not know what they are carrying or how hazardous the materials are, 

and they cannot communicate with emergency responders. Alternatively, drivers may know 

what they are carrying but may not realize that an accidental mixture of the materials can be 

dangerous. Fortunately, he added, many of the emergency response personnel in this area are 

fluent in Spanish; for those who are not, communication is very difficult, posing safety issues. 

The OOIDA interviewees agreed with this point in general; the NTTC interviewee, in 

contrast, seemed to feel that, given the hazmat placard system and the availability of shipping 

documentation, a driver’s inability to communicate in English was not a major concern. 

FMCSA’s passenger-carrier-safety interviewee and the passenger-carrier association contacts 

agreed that a bus driver’s ability to communicate with passengers and emergency responders 

is essential. This issue received enormous public and regulatory attention following a tragedy 

that occurred in Wilmer, Texas, during the evacuation of Houston in advance of Hurricane 

Rita. Although National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators concluded that the 

driver’s language proficiency was not a determining factor in the accident,23 two interviewees, 

one of them a Federal official, nevertheless cited the Wilmer event as an example of why bus 

drivers must speak English. Other recently publicized safety incidents involving ethnically 

targeted passenger carriers—for example, the so-called Chinatown buses—have also raised 

public and regulatory consciousness about what happens when a driver and passengers or a 

driver and emergency response personnel do not speak the same language in an emergency. 

(An emergency in this context might refer to a passenger experiencing medical difficulty or to 

something wrong with the bus itself.) 

The regulation is based on an assumption that passengers and emergency response personnel 

all speak English, but, as interviewees pointed out, this is not necessarily the case. Passenger 

carriers that cater largely to populations speaking languages other than English employ 

drivers who speak those languages, and depending on where an emergency arises, the location 

 

23 National Transportation Safety Board. Motor Coach Fire on Interstate 45 During Hurricane Rita Evacuation Near Wilmer, Texas, 

September 23, 2005. Accident Report. NTSB/HAR-07/01 PB2007-916202. p. 69. 
46 

might be one in which the driver, local residents, and emergency responders all speak the 

same non-English language. However, when the passenger carrier is operating in interstate 

travel, drivers are likely to encounter emergency responders who speak only English. The 

general sense was that, from a regulatory perspective, while drivers need to be able to 

communicate emergency information in English; the ability to communicate with passengers 

in another language was a business decision for the carrier. 

Driver inability to understand and respond to signage 

When the motor carrier regulation first took effect in 1936, the fundamental requirement for 

language proficiency among CMV drivers, even those otherwise exempted from having to be 

able to read and speak English, was “the ability to understand traffic and warning signs.” 

While this concern was not the first that was spontaneously mentioned by Phase I 

interviewees, it was the one topic on which there was universal agreement. As one 

interviewee said: 

For me, as a traffic engineer with thirty years of experience, and also as a 

member of the NCUTCD [National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices], I believe it is absolutely essential for drivers to understand the signs 

and signals they see on the roadways. It is important for their safety and the 

safety of others on the road. 

MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers to install and maintain traffic control 

devices on streets and highways nationwide. MUTCD is published by FHWA under 23 CFR 

Code 655, Subpart F. The version currently in use is the 2003 Edition with Revision Number 

1 Incorporated, dated November 2004. States are required to adopt the National Manual or to 

have a State MUTCD or supplement that is in substantial conformance with it encompasses 

regulatory, warning, guide, and special service signs as well as road markings, temporary 

traffic controls, and a range of signage and markings for special situations, including railway 

crossings. Signs may contain symbols or wording, or both; all words are in American English 

only. 

The interviewer team wanted to ascertain whether data from accidents in which language 

insufficiency in relation to signage was a factor were available as an input to the revision 

process. MUTCD interviewees said that they work closely with FHWA’s Office of Safety, 

“so if issues come up, we’re aware of it. We work closely with FRA as well. We work with a 

number of partners, and we get our data from different sources.” 24 One contact added, 

however, that:

The level of detail in accident reports varies greatly. Whether language was an 

issue is a piece of information that may or may not have been collected or be 

included. Whenever there’s a railroad-crossing accident, if NTSB investigates 

it will be very thorough and every avenue will be explored. The 

comprehensiveness in investigations below the NTSB level varies. 

 

24 The TCD team responsible for MUTCD works within FHWA’s Office of Transportation Operations. 
47 

MUTCD interviewees advised the interviewer team that, while there is no one set of 

internationally recognized traffic control device (TCD) standards, nations do not operate in a 

vacuum. There are international scanning programs, in which the United States participates, 

for viewing and comparing standards. FHWA staff involved with MUTCD periodically 

review standards and best practices from around the world to decide what should be 

incorporated during the next update of the manual. 

According to interviewees, Canada and Mexico have their own standards for TCDs. Experts 

from those two nations as well as the United States attend each others’ meetings to share 

information. (Participation tends to be somewhat higher proportionally for Canada than for 

Mexico.) 

While NAFTA was being negotiated, a publication for comparing major types of signs among 

Canada, the United States, and Mexico was produced.25 Many similarities were found, but 

there were considerable differences as well. Broadly, U.S. signage was found to combine 

words with symbols far more than that in Mexico or Canada. 

MUTCD contacts went on to describe how the manual approaches the use of English. They 

reported a deliberate effort to keep the language very brief (without being cryptic), simple, 

and understandable so that people can have time to react. MUTCD does not have a standard 

list of words to be used on signs, but language is kept to an elementary level of 

comprehension, and if new language is proposed it is put through operational tests prior to 

acceptance. When States create their own signage, interviewees added, they must adhere to 

the same guidelines for readability. 

Signage may be in a fixed format or it may take the form of dynamic message signs (DMS), 

also known as changeable message signs (CMS) and variable message signs (VMS). DMS is 

a relatively recent development in the history of traffic signage and is being used increasingly 

around the country, largely on highways and arterials in the vicinity of metropolitan areas. 

DMS is intended primarily for use in managing travel, controlling and diverting traffic, 

identifying current and anticipated roadway conditions, and regulating access to specific lanes 

or the entire roadway.26 It may also be used to transmit emergency security messages27 and 

AMBER Alerts28 to drivers under specified conditions. DMS is operated by local and State 

transportation agencies; by its nature, it conveys a wide array of messages. According to the 

AASHTO interviewee, the States do not share a common lexicon for message language at this 

time. 

Some enforcement and industry interviewees voiced serious doubts about the ability of 

drivers with limited English to understand any U.S. signage involving words. They said that 

fixed signage—for example, at railroad crossings—can contain detailed language that is 

 

25 Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation. Road User Guide for North America. FHWA-SA-99-020 Revised 

HOTO/4-99(22M)E. 26 FHWA Policy Memorandum, INFORMATION and ACTION: Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Recommended Practice and Guidance, 

7/16/04. 27 FHWA Policy Memorandum, INFORMATION: Use of Changeable Message Sign (CMS) for Emergency Security Messages, 3/21/03. 28 INFORMATION: AMBER Alert—Use of Changeable Message Sign (CMS), 8/16/02. 
48 

sometimes hard even for native English speakers to follow.29 The FMCSA licensure 

interviewee recounted how a railroad-crossing sign in Florida was misunderstood by the 

heavily foreign tourist population until the more widely recognizable red stop sign was added. 

DMS was a point of specific concern for interviewees, presenting a major challenge to 

English-speaking and LEP drivers alike. According to FHWA30: 

DMS must be readable and understandable by motorists in the amount of time 

that the DMS can be viewed. Factors such as prevailing travel speeds, letter 

height, lighting, and roadway geometrics approaching the DMS (i.e., when 

motorists can see the DMS) must all be considered in developing the messages 

to be displayed. Also the messages must consider the desired actions or 

response by the motorists. 

The AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) Policy Provisions 

and recommends that “a test to determine an applicant’s knowledge of road signs and 

signals31” be included in the driver license examination. AAMVA’s recommendations, which 

are advisory and not binding, were discussed with the AAMVA interviewee, who said that 

States do test for understanding of signage, both on the written test and during the road test. 

On the subject of DMS, he did not recommend putting these types of signs into the road test 

because the routes selected at each test location might or might not include such signage and, 

where they did so, there would be no guarantee that the sign would be displaying a message at 

the time of a particular road test. 

Impediments to compliance and enforcement 

According to Phase I interviewees, the current regulatory framework impedes both 

compliance and enforcement. The reasons cited included: 

• Absence of critical tools for compliance and enforcement. 

• Differences between licensure requirements and language proficiency requirements 

for drivers. 

• Variation in approach to enforcement among States. 

Absence of critical tools for compliance and enforcement 

While the regulation puts the responsibility for compliance on the motor carrier, neither the 

carrier nor the enforcing authorities are provided with tools that support compliance or 

provide a structure for enforcement activity. Comments provided by interviewees included: 

 

29 See MUTCD Part 8 Traffic Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1/Ch8.pdf for the signage in question. 30 FHWA Policy Memorandum, INFORMATION: Use of Changeable Message Sign (CMS) for Emergency Security Messages, 3/21/03. 31 American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Policy Positions and Bylaws of the American Association of Motor 

Vehicle Administrators Reflecting action taken by the Membership through the 2006 Policy Process. Undated. p. 8. 
49 

• There are no explicit, consistent criteria for assessing a driver’s language 

proficiency. Efforts to develop such criteria were reported as being ad hoc and 

subjective. Without defensible criteria, there is legal exposure under Title VII32,33. As 

stated by one industry contact, “I’ve spoken to folks with a . . . 20-truck operation and 

folks with a 200-truck operation. The owners are concerned that they might get sued 

for implying that the candidate doesn’t speak enough English.” 

• There is no requirement under §391.11(b)(2) for the motor carrier to document when 

and how the required assessment of the driver candidate’s English proficiency was 

performed or its outcome. Section 49 CFR 391.51, which stipulates the driver 

qualification records that must be maintained by the motor carrier, is silent on this 

point. As a result, there is nothing that an inspector or safety investigator can evaluate 

to determine what the carrier is and is not doing. There is also no baseline that the 

safety investigator could use to help in educating the carrier on appropriate assessment 

methods. As an FMCSA interviewee said, “Even though in theory we have the 

authority to cite during a compliance review, we never do. So where is the incentive 

for a motor carrier to be proactive and promote English proficiency among his 

drivers?” In the words of an OOIDA interviewee, “So much of the enforcement is 

centered on the driver. That’s akin to treating a symptom rather than the disease.” 34

• Nowhere in the regulation is there any specified duration or set of actions, which, if 

successfully completed, will enable a driver put out of service to return to service. 

Asked what a carrier does if a driver is put out of service, trucking association 

interviewees said that the driver would be fired. However, the OOIDA contact 

suggested that the driver might continue to drive once he or she was out of the view of 

the inspector. 

• Basic assumptions about the regulation’s assignment of testing responsibility to the 

motor carrier apparently don’t correlate with how the trucking industry works today. 

The regulation is based on an implicit assumption dating back to 1936 that the motor 

carrier has English proficiency. It also reflects an assumption that the motor carrier has 

hiring authority over, and direct contact with, every driver. Neither is necessarily the 

case. According to the CVSA interviewee: 

We’ve had some cases, anecdotally, when a driver is put out of service, and 

the officer contacts the carrier to send a new driver. “Oh, by the way, how did 

you hire this guy?” “Well, he had a CDL.” “Did you talk to him?” “Yeah!” 

“Who did? Because we can’t talk to him.” That happens every day. . . . 

They’re certainly liable if he doesn’t [speak English]. How can you put a truck 

with half a million worth of freight in the hands of a person who doesn’t 

understand “open the door”? This industry is very diverse. There are very 

distributed drivers and operators. All they do is contract to have someone 

come to their facility and drive [the vehicle] away. Not every carrier gets 

 

32 Ibid. 

33 FMCSA Docket Entry FMCSA-1997-2759-35. 

34 It should be noted that, according to MCMIS, violations of 391.11(b)(2) have been recorded during CRs. 
50 

eyeball-to-eyeball with their drivers all the time. There’s also leasing and 

drivers working for multiple carriers. It’s not a simple thing. 

• The AAMVA interviewee made a parallel point: 

[When the law was made] you were dealing with a totally different 

time; there was less diversity of languages, and an honor-based system 

tended to work. Companies were run differently then. We’re in an 

industry now where drivers are very hard to acquire. We have an aging 

driver population. But you’ve also got companies out there that will 

hire anybody who’s got a pulse and put them behind the wheel. You’ve 

got both good and bad companies. . . . 

Differences between licensure requirements and language proficiency requirements for 

drivers 

From the outset in 1936, regulations addressing limited English proficiency (FMCSR Part 

391, Qualifications of Drivers) stood outside of and apart from those governing commercial 

driver licensing (Part 383, Commercial Driver’s License Standards, and Part 384, State 

Compliance with Commercial Driver’s License Program). While 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) 

requires a certain level of English proficiency in order to drive a CMV legally, Part 383 does 

not provide for evaluation of this proficiency when granting a CDL. Therefore, while 

obtaining a CDL is necessary, it does not signify qualification for being permitted to drive a 

CMV. 

The licensure regulations in 49 CFR 383 and 384 establish minimum requirements for the 

States in relation to the written and skills tests, and States may go beyond them. 

Consequently, individual State policies vary considerably with regard to the written, skills, 

and endorsement testing that they offer in languages in addition to English. 

The separation of licensing from English-proficiency requirements puts companies in an 

untenable position. As noted above, if a State issues a CDL to an individual who is not 

proficient in English, the company is at risk of a lawsuit under Title VII if it fails to hire the 

person on the grounds of language insufficiency because of the appearance of discrimination 

(absent demonstrable justification for not doing so in the context of the job’s requirements). 

Variation in approach to enforcement among States 

Some industry association interviewees made comments to the effect that States are 

responding in various ways to the 2005 CVSA OOS Criteria. Some States are actively 

enforcing the criteria while others are not. Some States reportedly have inspectors who speak 

Spanish and consider communication in that language to be completely in line with the CVSA 

OOS Criteria, which use NAFTA language and do not mention English proficiency per se. 

Other States strictly interpret and enforce the regulation. 

Proposed improvements to current system 

Almost all Phase I interviewees were of the opinion that a baseline level of English 

proficiency should be established for all CMV drivers. Some suggested that the baseline 
51 

should be developed by FMCSA; in contrast, a trucking association interviewee said that 

some members had requested guidelines directly from the association. On the industry side, 

there was a tone of caution on where to set a baseline and a suggestion that this would directly 

impact the extent of carrier support for the idea. 

There was considerable agreement among interviewees that passenger-carrier and hazmat 

endorsements should require demonstration of a higher level of English proficiency than the 

baseline requirement. However, at least one interviewee thought that a higher proficiency 

level for these endorsements would be difficult to achieve from a political standpoint because 

some States with large Spanish-speaking populations administer the hazmat-endorsement test 

in Spanish and permit Spanish-speaking hazmat drivers to operate intrastate. A public 

interest-group interviewee was hesitant to buy into the idea of the higher proficiency standard 

for hazmat unless it would be possible to avoid an initial political compromise that “dumbed 

down” the baseline to the point where neither standard served public safety. 

A major difference of opinion emerged when interviewees were asked “Who should test for 

English proficiency?” With the exception of FMCSA headquarters enforcers, a considerable 

number of interviewees thought that the best solution would be to turn over at least some of 

this responsibility to States as part of the CDL testing process. As stated by the AAMVA 

interviewee: 

[You should] take these safety provisions out of [the motor carriers’] hands 

and put them . . . into the licensing process. Then, when a driver applies for a 

job, you have a better sense that if they hold that license you’re getting 

someone who is qualified. It’s supposed to be a qualification document. The 

State is guaranteeing to FMCSA that you are qualified. Right now we’re in the 

process of merging the medical certification with the CDL, so you’ll have to 

take the license at face value that the driver is medically qualified. You should 

be able to do the same thing with language. 

Interviewees expressed openness about continuing to permit States to offer the written test in 

languages in addition to English, but there was also a strong feeling that the skills-test 

components should be conducted only in English. One interviewee called for “a strict test of 

comprehension of signs and traffic control devices.” 

The OOIDA contact recommended that the establishment of English proficiency begin higher 

in the pipeline for new entrants into the CMV driving profession, saying that driver training 

schools should be required to ensure that drivers be allowed to graduate only if their 

proficiency has been demonstrated satisfactorily. The interviewee added that there is currently 

no incentive for driving schools to screen out applicants who lack English proficiency. 

2.3.4 Phase II Interviews: State Agencies 

On the basis of the Phase I interviews, the authors recommended to FMCSA that the study 

explore three categories of activity at the State level: the design of signage, the issuance of 

commercial vehicle licenses and special endorsements, and the roadside enforcement of 

§391.11(b)(2). 
52 

2.3.4.1 Approach/Methodology 

State governments vary considerably in their organization; therefore, the correct 

administrative units in each State and the appropriate individuals within each agency had to 

be identified. Each selection was confirmed through email and telephone calls. 

While the questionnaires for each of the three categories of activity were standardized, the 

interviewers tailored probe questions, based on research on State Government and on relevant 

news items, to each State and agency. 

Table 14 lists the agency affiliations of State interviewees, their areas of expertise, and the 

date of the interview.
53 

Table 14. Information on Phase II Interviewees’ Agencies, by Category 

State Area Agency/Department Date of 

Interview 

CA Enforcement California Highway Patrol 

Enforcement Services Division 

06/12/07 

CA Signage Signs and Work Zones Branch, 

Caltrans 

06/14/07 

CA Licensure CDL, Department of Motor Vehicles 06/22/07 

FL Licensure CDL Coordinator 06/21/06 

FL Signage State Traffic Engineering and 

Operations Office 

06/27/07 

FL Enforcement Office of Motor Carrier Compliance, 

FDOT 

07/3/07 

IL Licensure CDL, Office of the Secretary of State 06/20/07 

IL Signage IDOT Bureau of Operations/Sign Shop 06/25/07 

IL Enforcement Illinois State Police, Commercial 

Vehicle Section 

06/26/07 

MD Licensure Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, 

Driver and Vehicle Policies and 

Programs 

06/28/07 

MD Enforcement Maryland State Police Transportation 

Safety Command 

07/2/07 

MD Signage Office of Traffic and Safety, Maryland 

State Highway Administration 

07/10/07 

NY Signage Traffic Operations, NYS Department of 

Transportation/MUTCD 

06/26/07 

NY Enforcement Motor Carrier Safety Bureau, NYS 

Department of Transportation 

06/28/07 

NY Licensure CDL, NYS Department of Motor 

Vehicles 

06/29/07 

OR Signage Traffic Standards and Asset 

Management Unit, Traffic Roadway 

Section, Oregon DOT 

06/22/07 

OR Licensure CDL, Oregon DOT 06/27/07 

OR Enforcement Safety/Investigations/Federal 

Programs, Motor Carrier 

Transportation Division, Oregon DOT 

06/29/07 

TX Licensure CDL, Department of Public Safety 06/20/07 

TX Enforcement Texas Department of Public Safety 

Highway Patrol Division 

06/28/07 

TX Signage Policy and Standards Branch, TxDOT 

Traffic Operations 

06/29/07 

UT Licensure CDL, Driver License Division, 

Department of Public Safety 

06/15/07 

UT Enforcement Utah Highway Patrol 06/18/07 

UT Signage Motor Carrier Operations, Utah DOT 06/28/07 

VT Licensure CDL, Department of Motor Vehicles 06/21/06 

VT Enforcement Motor Vehicle Safety, Department of 

Motor Vehicles 

06/26/07 

VT Signage Traffic Research Section, VT Agency 

of Transportation 

06/28/07 
54 

2.4 RESULTS 

2.4.1 Findings in each of the three areas (signage, licensure, and enforcement) are 

discussed below. 

2.4.1.1 State Signage Summary 

Under 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2), CMV drivers are required to be able to “understand highway 

traffic signs and signals in the English language.” In the Phase I interviews, multiple 

interviewees expressed concern about the ability of drivers with limited English to understand 

signage in the United States, especially DMS, which is becoming increasingly common. 

These issues informed the design of questions for signage contacts during the Phase II 

interviews with State personnel. 

Interviews with State signage personnel concentrated on the comprehensibility of road signs, 

both conventional and DMS. Also discussed were multilingual signage and the relationship 

between English-language signage comprehension and roadway safety. 

In addition, the interviews focused on how States assess proposed new signs for readability 

and comprehensibility. Although none of the States in the study reported using an Englishreading grade level as a benchmark, all indicated a desire to make signs as short, simple, and 

easy to read as possible. 

Overall, signage contacts who commented on the subject agreed that some amount of English 

proficiency is needed for safety on the roads. 

Comprehension and Safety 

Most signage contacts did not report knowledge of specific accidents or incidents caused by a 

driver’s lack of ability to comprehend an English-language road sign, but two such events 

were mentioned. One contact reported an incident in which a Russian-speaking driver, cited 

for failure to stop at a stop sign, claimed not to have understood what the sign had meant. 

Another contact related a case in which a French-speaking bus driver from Quebec who failed 

to stop at a border-patrol checkpoint claimed not to have understood the signage. The driver 

had passed back and forth across the border many times before, which led the contact to doubt 

the driver’s assertion. The New York contact reported that a general reduction in the 

prevalence of trucks tipping due to excessive speed was observed after symbolic warning 

signs were installed. Additional overhead and electronic warning signs were also installed, so 

it is possible that both English-speaking truck drivers and those with limited English 

proficiency paid more attention and benefited from the warnings. 

Interviewees also discussed the comprehensibility of DMS. One contact said that personnel at 

the State level expect that any message that can be displayed within the technological 

constraints of a DMS is likely to be understandable on the basis of the assumption that FHWA 

conducted appropriate tests when setting the specifications for such signs. 

Several States have developed guidelines for messages used on DMS. New York has a 

“playbook” of specific abbreviations and phrases that should be used under given conditions; 

therefore, signs across the State that describe similar situations should use the same wording. 

Each State has standards for the length of messages on a DMS and the number of “screens” of 
55 

text that may be rotated. Several States reported researching the use of symbols and graphics 

on DMS. One contact expressed the opinion that additional testing will be needed before such 

use is widespread. 

Multilingual Signage 

Only one State, New York, has developed a formal policy for bilingual signage. This was in 

response to requests from Quebec 6 years ago for such signage in the Interstate 87 corridor 

through the Adirondack Mountains, along which many French-speaking Canadians travel. 

The eight remaining States have no formal policy requiring bilingual signage; signs in English 

only are the norm. California and Vermont reported exceptions that they have made for 

practical reasons; the former State permits English-Spanish signage in areas along the 

Mexican border only, confining such use to important messages regarding safety and 

mobility, while the latter has limited English-French signage along the Canadian border. 

Maryland has considered displaying temporary conventional work-zone signs in multiple 

languages but has not developed an official policy. Although permanent bilingual signage has 

not been posted, Spanish-language pedestrian signage has been installed in areas with large 

Spanish-speaking populations in response to safety concerns that were voiced following a 

specific accident. 

Some contacts reported that they had received requests for signage in languages other than 

English, which they have generally turned down; they attributed this resistance to a concern 

that accommodating one request for a non-English sign would, for the sake of fairness, 

necessitate granting all such requests or posting signs in all possible relevant languages. They 

worried that such a development would be prohibitively expensive and that it might cause 

confusion for drivers. One signage contact, from a State that carefully follows Federal signage 

rules to protect itself from liability claims, said that both new laws and new MUTCD 

standards would have to be developed at the Federal level before it would increase the number 

of bilingual signs or deploy them throughout the State. 

Assessment of New Signs 

For the most part, State interviewees reported relying on standards developed at the Federal 

level and contained in MUTCD, published by FHWA. Several indicated that public meetings 

or focus groups are held to test the comprehensibility of any new signage developed by the 

State. Contacts from Oregon and New York mentioned that symbolic signs are preferred 

whenever possible. The Florida signage interviewee said that the State has set up a research 

laboratory to test symbols and word messages for comprehensibility by all road users, 

including non-English speakers; the results of these experiments have not yet been published. 

Another contact stated that sign comprehension should depend more on shape recognition 

than on reading skills; other contacts agreed that certain signs, such as the stop sign, have 

universal shapes that should be recognized by all. 

State Licensure Summary 

The Phase I interviews generated a number of questions to be posed to State licensure 

contacts: 
56 

• In what language(s) are the CDL written test and skills tests offered? The hazmat and 

passenger-endorsement tests? 

• Is third-party testing allowed? 

• Are there special safety concerns associated with a CMV driver’s limited English 

proficiency? 

• How does the State test for a driver’s understanding of signage, either fixed or 

dynamic? 

• How might testing for proficiency during licensure exams be accomplished? 

• Does the State have Title VI/VII concerns? 

• Has the State experienced problematic regulatory inconsistencies between CDL 

requirements and §391.11(b)(2)? 

Languages Used in CDL Testing 

What follows is a summary of each topic, by State. 

Table 15 lists the languages and formats in which the nine States interviewed offer their 

written and skills tests and special endorsements. The use of interpreters or third parties for 

testing and any policies regarding retesting of drivers with CDLs from other States are also 

shown. There was a considerable range in States’ policies with regard to offering written and 

skills testing in languages other than English.

Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Vermont. At one end of the spectrum, these four States 

offer all levels of testing in English only, tending to use the AAMVA automated testing 

system for the written test. According to the Illinois contact, the State’s policy on testing is 

straightforward: “The State’s view is that a person must be able to speak English, to speak 

with the public, and to read English. Our logic is that law enforcement and people at DMV 

speak English. If applicants speak other languages, that’s great, but they must be able to speak 

English.” The Vermont contact made a similar comment. The Maryland interviewee said that 

State is considering offering testing in Spanish. The State of Illinois, further strengthening its 

oversight over commercial driver licensing, has enacted the “Cite to Re-Exam” law: If any 

authorized source (e.g., law enforcement, medical practitioners, other States’ DMVs, judges) 

notifies the Secretary of State’s office that a safety problem with a driver has been observed, 

the Secretary’s office is empowered to call the driver in to retake the written and skills tests. If 

the driver does not appear or fails the tests, the driver’s license is canceled. 

Oregon, in contrast to these States, has been offering testing exclusively in English for just a 

short time; prior to 2006, testing was also available in Spanish and translators were provided. 

The licensure contact reported that the State was troubled by the fact that enforcement 

personnel, who are employees of the same State agency, were putting CMV drivers who 

lacked English proficiency out of service. A policy core group within the Oregon DMV 

reviewed the issue and agreed to align State policy with §391.11(b)(2) and to offer the CDL 

test in English only, to enable the agency to operate with internal consistency. 
57 

Florida. This State falls at the other end of the spectrum, offering the written test in 

automated format in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole. Polish and Russian applicants may 

take a written version of the test, and speakers of other languages (for example, Bosnian) may 

request oral testing with an interpreter provided by the State. The pre-inspection, basicmaneuvers, and road tests are all available in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole, and an 

interpreter is permitted on the skills tests. The Florida interviewee said that interpreters are not 

permitted for pre-trip-inspection testing because this could lend itself to the interpreter’s 

providing answers. Florida offers the hazmat-endorsement test in English, Spanish, and 

Creole. 

California. More than one Phase I interviewee disparaged California for offering CDL testing 

in a “vast array” of languages, while, in fact, California tests only in English and Spanish and 

has done so for more than 30 years. (California does test in 31 languages for the basic driver’s 

license, which is probably the basis for the urban legend.) The written test is automated using 

a system designed by the State. No interpreters are allowed at the skills tests. While the 

passenger-endorsement test is available in both English and Spanish, the hazmat-endorsement 

test is offered in English only. 
58 

Table 15. State Commercial Driver Licensure Practices 

Test 

Category 

CA FL IL MD NY OR TX VT UT 

Written Languages 

English, Spanish 

English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Polish, Russian, other (e.g., Bosnian) 

English English English and Spanish 

by law 

English English and 

Spanish by law; other languages if requested (through interpreter) 

English English; 

Bosnian and Spanish if dictionary is provided to help with translation 

Written Formats 

Automated (not AAMVA) 

Automated (English/Spanish/ Creole); written (Polish/Russian only); others orally with interpreter 

Automated * * Automated 

(AAMVA) and audio 

Choice of automated (ATLAS), paper, or oral test 

Automated (AAMVA) and oral 

* 

Pre-trip inspection Skills 

English, Spanish 

English, Spanish, Haitian Creole 

English English English English Written, “virtual” 

test; English, Spanish 

English English 

Basicmaneuvers skill test 

English, Spanish 

English, Spanish, Haitian Creole 

English English English English English, 

Spanish 

English English 

Road test skills 

English, Spanish 

English, Spanish, Haitian Creole 

English English English English English, 

Spanish 

English English 

Is interpreter permitted? 

No Pre-trip 

inspection: no; basicmaneuvers and road tests: yes 

N/A N/A No No No N/A N/A 
59 

Test 

Category 

CA FL IL MD NY OR TX VT UT 

Hazmat Endorsement 

English English, 

Spanish, Haitian Creole 

English English English (written) only; 

no oral test or foreign languages; interpreters not permitted 

English English, 

Spanish 

English English 

Passenger Endorsement 

English, Spanish 

* English English English, Spanish English English, 

Spanish 

English English 

Third party permitted to test? 

Pre-trip inspection: no; basicmaneuvers and road tests: yes 

Pre-trip inspection: no; basicmaneuvers and road tests: yes 

No Community 

colleges and employersponsored programs only 

No Pre-trip 

inspection: no; basicmaneuvers and road tests: yes 

No No Skills tests 

only 

Retest out-ofState applicants?

* * Yes * No * * Out-ofState CMV 

drivers required to take basic rules-ofthe-road test; same for all applicants, basic and CDL 

* 

* Due to the dynamic nature of the interviews, the questions listed above were not posed to interviewees from each State. .
60 

New York. As required by State law, New York offers the written test in both English and 

Spanish. The skills tests, however, are available in English only, and no interpretation is 

permitted. As in California, the passenger endorsement is available in English and Spanish. 

The hazmat-endorsement test must be taken in written form, in English; no oral testing or 

interpretation is permitted. 

New York State has areas with large Spanish-speaking populations. The New York State 

Vehicle and Traffic Law §503(2)(a)(ii)(B) and Commissioner’s Regulations §3.4 require that 

written knowledge tests for driver licenses, permits, and endorsements be administered in 

Spanish as well as English. In 2005, in response to these regulations, the State DMV arranged 

for all CDL written-knowledge tests except the hazmat-endorsement test to be translated into 

Spanish by Language Services Associates (LSA) under an Office of General Services 

contract. The DMV provided LSA with the then-current Spanish-language translation of the 

New York CDL manual to use as a guide for consistency of technical vocabulary and 

expressions. Native Spanish-speaking DMV employees proofread the LSA translation and 

recommended changes to make the questions and answers easier to understand by the average 

Spanish-speaking applicant. 

Texas. Like New York, Texas must, under State law, offer CDL testing in English and 

Spanish. Applicants have a choice of formats: automated, paper, audio (responding to 

recorded questions), or oral (one-to-one contact between examiner and applicant). Applicants 

speaking other languages may request an interpreter. According to the interviewee, applicants 

who are unable to speak English sufficiently to communicate with the examiner are restricted 

to intrastate driving. Unlike in other States included in the study, the pre-trip inspection in 

Texas is primarily a sit-down, “virtual” test and may be taken in English or Spanish. (A few 

basic components, such as brakes and lights, are tested on the vehicle.) The basic-maneuvers 

and road tests are conducted in English or Spanish without interpretation. 

Utah. In Utah, the written test is offered in English; however, applicants speaking Spanish or 

Bosnian may provide their own dictionaries to help with translation. The dictionary is 

reviewed before the test to ensure that there are no notes in it. At the DMV counter, applicants 

may be accompanied by someone who can speak for them, but these helpers may not assist 

during the testing. All skills tests are available in English only. The same is true for the 

hazmat and passenger-endorsement tests 

Third-party testing 

With regard to permitting third parties such as driving schools or employers to administer any 

part of a CDL test, the nine States were split in terms of their practices. 

California. California has no third-party CDL testing program per se, but it does allow large 

businesses to train and test their own employees. Approximately 400 employers participate in 

the program, including transit authorities, bus companies, large carriers, and some smaller 

companies. However, according to the interviewee, the CDL testing requirements for these 

organizations, which are the same as State licensing requirements, are so stringent that most 

smaller companies drop out of the program. Company examiners must receive the same 

training as State examiners, and if they are inactive for 90 days they must repeat the CDL 

examiner training. 
61 

The employer-administered testing program involves the skills tests only. Participating 

companies may hire and train employees, send them to the licensing agency for the CDL 

written test, and then conduct their own pre-trip inspection and road tests. The program 

includes a monitoring component to audit the examiners, the test route, and the recordkeeping 

on an annual basis. If a major problem is discovered during the audit, the State can 

discontinue the program. A larger sample or all of the drivers may be tested if there is just 

cause. The contact recalled one case where it was questionable as to how the CDL tests were 

conducted; consequently, all drivers were required to be retested. 

All employer-run testing programs must comply with the English-language CDL test. 

California has driver-training schools that teach in various languages; however, the CDL test 

is conducted in English only. Although the DMV does not regulate training schools, the 

assumption is that the schools “teach to the test” to some degree. The contact could not 

provide statistics but believed that formally trained drivers had better test scores than those 

who did not attend driver training schools. Truck-driving schools have been out of the DMV’s 

jurisdiction for approximately 18 years. This organizational structure is being reconsidered; 

the issue under discussion is whether truck-driver training should be moved back to the DMV. 

Florida. In Florida, all CDL written tests are administered in a DMV office. However, 

approximately 90 percent of all skills tests are given by third-party administrators, which has 

been the case since 2001. There are 800 certified CDL skills testers in 200 third-party 

companies. In order to be a certified third-party administrator, the company must post bond 

and prospective testers must meet all Federal requirements. The CDL training class is offered 

by seven community colleges and technical schools with commercial vehicle programs. 

The contact noted that the DMV recently tried to modify the regulatory language covering 

third parties to make it more stringent. However, third-party companies in Florida have an 

occupational license, and the most that the DMV could negotiate was that the CDL tester 

must have “no history of criminal convictions . . . felonies, [and] misdemeanors.” The tester’s 

record is then forwarded to a committee for evaluation and approval. The contact was not 

aware of any third-party testers in Florida who do not speak English. Many testers are 

bilingual or trilingual, with fluency in English, Spanish, and/or Haitian Creole. 

Each test route, including signage, is set up in advance and approved by the State. All thirdparty testers have different routes and alternate roadways. A staff of nine State inspectors 

monitors and approves the third-party test routes. Once a route has been approved, the tester 

must not deviate from it. 

Florida conducts an annual onsite inspection and audit of each third-party school and its 

inspection system database, including assessment of password protection, test pass-fail 

information, and technical data. State officers also observe the CDL testing process covertly 

and verify information entered into the database, looking for suspicious activity, such as test 

results entered for dates when no tests were conducted. The detection of suspicious activity 

may trigger closer surveillance, interviewing of customers, or investigation by the State 

Highway Patrol, which would then send in an undercover applicant. 

Illinois. All CDL testing in Illinois is conducted by State employees on State property, which 

facilitates management control over the testing process. Although there are third-party driving 

schools in the State, they are not permitted to conduct CDL testing. Similarly, New York, 
62 

Texas, and Vermont do not contract out any phase of CDL testing to third parties, the 

rationale for this approach being that it reduces the risk of fraud. 

Maryland. Maryland has no walk-in third-party testing facilities but rather “career school” 

testing, which takes two forms. Large companies may work with the Motor Vehicle 

Administration (MVA); individuals who have been trained to serve as MVA representatives 

then teach the company’s employees. A few career schools are located at community 

colleges; these, too, have trained instructors who are permitted to teach college-enrolled 

students. Maryland executes an agreement between each third-party administrator and the 

MVA, empowering the third party to administer CDL tests. The interviewee noted that this 

approach was taken to maintain control over the testing process. She recalled that, when thirdparty testing was initiated in the industry, there were numerous problems in Florida, Ohio, and 

Illinois. Maryland elected not to utilize third-party testers and instead to assist the State’s 

employers. Consequently, the MVA began the employer testing program, and gradually added 

community colleges. The Maryland contact reported that this program has been very 

successful. 

Oregon. The majority of CDL applicants in Oregon go to third-party examiners for the skills 

tests. During the pre-trip inspection, the examiner must ask the applicant to demonstrate 

knowledge of the vehicle and its operation in English only. However, the Oregon interviewee 

noted that it is not the responsibility of the tester (either State or third-party) to evaluate 

English proficiency; consequently, some third-party testers do only the “bare minimum” in 

terms of testing. To detect this and other problematic practices, the State conducts on-site 

audits of third-party examiners annually to ensure that tests are being administered properly 

and to determine whether applicants are being probed sufficiently. Allegations of insufficient 

evaluation of CDL applicants have necessitated more frequent inspections. The interviewee 

commented, “We’re constantly on the lookout for that—it’s difficult.” 

In the interviewee’s opinion, third-party testers should not approve CDL students who would 

not pass an English-language skills test. She was concerned that such applicants would spend 

a significant amount of money during the licensing process only to be told that they cannot be 

licensed to drive commercially or to have their license taken away. She believed it would be 

more fair not to give these individuals a license in the first place if they cannot speak English 

sufficiently. 

With regard to the passenger endorsement, bus drivers employed by the Department of 

Education and other public agencies must be tested in English. Private motor carrier 

examiners are permitted to test their own employees. Private truck-driver training schools 

cannot test their own students, although they are permitted to test another school’s students or 

to contract with a different third-party tester. The State reviews private schools’ student logs. 

Safety concerns related to English-language proficiency 

There was some consensus among the States with regard to two themes that had also been 

mentioned by Phase I interviewees: 

• Emergency situations. The California, Florida, Oregon, Vermont, and New York 

contacts all believed that a driver’s English-language proficiency is particularly 
63 

important in any kind of emergency situation in order to communicate with emergency 

personnel; several mentioned hazmat drivers in particular. 

• Ability to comprehend signage. In the opinion of the California contact, “times have 

changed;” the increased variety of signage, including fixed and portable DMS, has 

made English-language proficiency and comprehension more critical. The Vermont 

contact offered a similar viewpoint. The New York contact thought that a long-haul 

driver needs to understand the English language at a reasonable level because not 

every sign can be converted into a symbolic-message format. The Oregon contact 

emphasized the importance of a driver’s ability to understand bridge-height 

restrictions. 

The States had additional concerns that had not been mentioned in Phase I interviews. 

• Texas law-enforcement personnel on State highways are involved in drug interdiction 

and immigration control activity. If a driver cannot understand the requests of a State 

trooper or border control officer, a relatively routine stop may escalate unnecessarily, 

putting all involved at potential risk. 

• The California contact said that trucking companies contact the licensure office to 

complain that they have drivers who do not understand the English language 

sufficiently to follow loading instructions, resulting in shifting loads. 

Not all interviewees shared the view that English-language proficiency among CMV drivers 

is essential for highway safety. The Florida contact said he was not convinced that there is a 

relationship between language ability and crash avoidance. He asserted that few if any 

accidents are caused by a driver’s lack of knowledge or ability, but rather by a failure to react 

appropriately—for example, a driver’s not stopping at a stop sign despite understanding what 

it means. He further stated that there is no body of data demonstrating a strong correlation 

between English-language proficiency and safety. 

Testing for knowledge of signage 

AAMVA’s Policy Positions and Bylaws recommends that “a test to determine an applicant’s 

knowledge of road signs and signals” be included in the driver’s license examination.35

Interviewees revealed considerable variation in how States tested and the extent to which the 

ability to comprehend English signage was assessed. No one described any systematic attempt 

to gauge drivers’ ability to read DMS. 

In California, the basic driver’s test (which everyone, including CMV drivers, must take) 

includes a section in which applicants must complete signs, shapes, and words. CDL 

applicants also take a “words and phrases” test, in which they must verbally explain the 

meaning of a sign to an examiner in English. Testing for signage comprehension on the road 

course is conducted according to AAMVA standards. Examiners do not questions drivers 

while they are operating the vehicle; rather, they observe whether drivers comply with signs 

 

35 AAMVA. Op. cit., loc. cit. 
64 

and traffic laws. The contact explained, “I don’t think that it’s a fair question, to ask someone 

30 seconds later, ‘What did that sign back there say?’ A driver of a moderate-height truck will 

ignore height limits that don’t apply to him.” 

In contrast, in Florida there are parts of the CDL test during which the examiner will ask the 

applicant “What did that sign say?” with regard to a sign that was just passed. As the contact 

explained, what the sign says and what it means are two different questions. For example, the 

examiner may ask, “This sign says ‘stop’—what does ‘stop’ mean?” During the road test, 

drivers must respond appropriately to all signage; drivers who run a stop sign will fail the test, 

not because they did not understand the sign but because they disobeyed a traffic law. 

In Oregon, there are no signage-comprehension questions in the written test. During the skills 

test, however, the examiner might ask, “What did that sign back there say?” or order, “Go up 

to the next stop sign and turn left.” Similarly, CDL examiners in Vermont ask applicants 

about the meaning of various signs during road tests, although there is no preset questioning 

procedure. 

New York tests for signage comprehension in the road-test phase of the CDL skills test, 

which is conducted on public streets and highways. To complete the test, applicants must 

demonstrate safe-driving practices (termed in-traffic driving), including obeying all traffic 

signs and TCDs. Examiners also ask drivers about CMV-specific signs (e.g., those pertaining 

to height clearances and weight restrictions) as part of the testing procedure. 

In Texas, the automated written test presents questions that depict roadway signage and 

provides multiple choices regarding meaning from which applicants must select a response. In 

a face-to-face oral test, the examiner points to a sign and the applicant is required to explain 

its meaning. In the skills test, signage comprehension per se is not evaluated; however, as in 

New York, the applicant is expected to obey all traffic regulations and to respond 

appropriately to signage, including any DMS on the road course. (While there is DMS in the 

region in which the Texas interviewee works, it was not clear whether all Texas road-test 

courses are mapped to include it.) 

In Utah, the written test contains questions asking the meaning of depicted signs. The skills 

test includes signs to which the applicant must respond while driving. The examiner will also 

ask questions about signs as they are passed. 

Illinois also tests for signage comprehension on both the written and skills tests. According to 

the contact, the written test presents pictures of signs minus the words, and the applicant must 

give a written explanation of each. During the road test, the applicant must understand the 

terms being used and obey all traffic regulations. 

Maryland requires that applicants pass a knowledge test in order to get a noncommercial 

motor vehicle driver’s license prior to obtaining the CDL. The test includes questions that 

relate to comprehension of signage. CDL testing for signage and traffic-signal comprehension 

also takes place during the skills test, which is conducted on public roads. 
65 

Assessing English proficiency during the licensure process 

Practically speaking, States that offer CDL testing only in English on written and/or skills 

tests are already assessing the English proficiency of the applicants. In Illinois, for example, 

the pre-trip test represents the first one-on-one interaction between the applicant and the 

examiner. During the road test, the applicant must understand the terms being used and obey 

all traffic regulations. 

Similarly, in Vermont, English-language proficiency can be assessed by means of the 

applicant’s aptitude on the written test, communication during the pre-trip inspection, and 

knowledge displayed on the skills test, when commands are issued and the applicant’s 

understanding of them is evaluated. Before an applicant is allowed to go on the road, the CDL 

examiner establishes communication to ensure that the applicant understands commands such 

as “stop.” By providing study materials in English and administering the test in English only, 

licensing officials can straightforwardly determine whether there is a language-proficiency 

issue. The pre-trip inspection involves review of the entire truck, during which the applicant 

must answer at least 57 of more than 80 questions correctly to obtain a Class A CDL. By the 

time that the pre-trip inspection has been completed, the examiner usually can determine 

whether the applicant has a good understanding of English. 

In Maryland, the language-proficiency assessment essentially begins when the CDL examiner 

meets the applicant. The interviewee felt that examiners can “pick up on a lot” during that 

initial interaction. She added, however, that explicit language-proficiency standards are 

needed to facilitate the assessment and to remove the burden from examiners. 

The Oregon contact was of the opinion that English-language proficiency can be assessed 

during the licensing process but, like the Maryland contact, believed that language proficiency 

is too subjective for agency staff to assess. The contact suggested that the only way an 

assessment would be consistent throughout the United States would be if FMCSA were to 

require CDL testing in English only and also to develop a language-proficiency test. 

In States that offer the written test in other languages but the skills tests in English only, the 

latter tests provide an opportunity to assess language proficiency. The Utah contact said that 

some applicants appear to be pretending they do not understand English well when they come 

to the DMV for the skills test. The presumption is that these applicants believe that this might 

give them an advantage or perhaps that they will get help on the test; applicants have been 

known to ask questions during the test to see whether the examiner will guide them toward 

the correct answers. In other cases, applicants may not be comfortable with the English 

language and may not want to speak for themselves; they may bring friends or family 

members to the test site to help them respond to questions. However, once they have passed 

the counter and are actually taking the test, they realize that they are on their own and that 

they must do their best; they will usually “step it up” and pass the test. 

In New York, the DMV essentially assesses language proficiency throughout the three phases 

of the skills test, when the applicant must understand the examiner’s instructions and respond 

to questions, all of which are asked in English. To complete the test, an applicant must explain 

to the examiner why he or she believes that the vehicle is in safe operating condition and must 

demonstrate safe driving practices, including obeying all traffic signs and traffic controls. 
66 

CDL examiners also ask drivers about CMV-specific signs (e.g., those pertaining to height 

clearances and weight restrictions) as part of the testing procedure. 

In Texas, most of the pre-trip examination is conducted in a written, “virtual” form. However, 

some basic elements of the examination, such as testing the air brakes, are performed on a 

vehicle. The licensure interviewee said that this part of the test was the point at which the 

applicant’s level of English proficiency would become evident to the examiner. 

In California, the examiner uses words and phrases, signage-comprehension tests, and trafficlaw tests to assess drivers’ proficiency in English. The State is considering adding sample 

logbook entries to the CDL test. 

Although Florida offers the skills test in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole, the interviewee 

thought that the easiest way to assess a CMV applicant’s proficiency in speaking, listening, 

and/or reading English would be to simply administer the test in English only. He had heard 

that many people comment that the written test adds a dimension of difficulty if the applicant 

does not speak English or speak it well, and he noted that it seemed reasonable to require 

language proficiency. Florida has promulgated the Plain English Initiative, which requires an 

eighth-grade reading level. The contact suggested that the AAMVA CDL written test be 

targeted to that level of reading comprehension. He thought that States would be willing to 

conduct a separate language-proficiency test if AAMVA were to review the current test and 

revise it to the appropriate comprehension level for applicants to be able to “communicate 

sufficiently.” In any case, he believed that FMCSA should “take that bull by the horns” and 

develop a language-proficiency level for States to follow, with CDL testing allowed in 

English only. 

Title VI and Title VII Concerns 

Asked whether there was a concern that requiring English-language proficiency might be 

discriminatory, only a few interviewees responded in the affirmative. The Utah and Maryland 

contacts indicated that potential Title VI and VII violations (stemming from enforcing the 

language-proficiency requirement) were not issues in their States. 

The California interviewee asserted that it is critical for a driver to understand English well 

enough to be able to read VMS, to deal with inspection and enforcement officers and weighstation personnel, and to maintain logbooks. While this level of proficiency is not equivalent 

to complete proficiency (which she defined as the ability to read entire sentences), she 

believed that it is adequate for being able to safely drive a CMV. 

The Illinois contact indicated that there have been two potential Title VI lawsuits since 1990, 

neither of which succeeded. The State’s response was that drivers with limited but sufficient 

English proficiency should still be able to obtain a CDL; fluency is not needed. 

In complete contrast, the Florida contact said that the State’s attorney general had determined 

that the English-language-proficiency requirement cannot be enforced because it would 

violate the civil rights of applicants. 
67 

Conflicting Regulations 

As noted above, Oregon felt compelled by the inconsistencies between Federal CDL and 

driver qualification regulations to limit its CDL testing to English only: 

The only way it would be consistent throughout the U.S. is if FMCSA says tests 

will be in English only or if it develops an English-proficiency test. It’s way too 

subjective for our people. I struggle with requiring all testing in English—this 

is tough for non-native speakers who could function at driving but freeze 

during test-taking. Of course, that happens with English speakers, too. But the 

policy makes the two halves of our agency work together, and it would be a 

disservice to drivers not to make sure they speak enough English to drive 

commercially. I feel bad for those that don’t realize they did anything wrong 

[being passed through by a third-party tester who did not ensure they can pass 

the skills test in English]. They spend all that money and somebody tells them 

they can be licensed and drive commercially, but then the license gets taken 

away. It would be more fair not to give them a license in the first place if they 

don’t speak enough English. 

The New York contact touched on the same issue: 

It doesn’t make a lot of sense for the Feds to require some sort of Englishlanguage conversancy and yet allow the States.[to test in other languages] 

First of all, what’s wrong with it is they don’t set a level, or a method to 

determine a level, for States to test with alternate methods and languages. So it 

would seem that they’re looking at cross purposes, to allow you to have a 

driver population that is “completely conversant” in English. 

State Enforcement Summary 

From the Data Analysis portion of this study, it was known that the nine States varied 

substantially in their relationship between the number of driver inspections they reported and 

their rates of LEP violations and consequent OOS orders. Table 16 presents these data.
68 

Table 16. LEP Violations by Interviewed States, June 2002–June 2007 

State Driver 

Inspections 

Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

% Driver 

Inspections 

with LEP 

Violation 

Driver 

Inspections with 

OOS LEP 

Violation 

% LEP 

Inspections with 

LEP as OOS 

CA 2,328,545 6 0 0 0

TX 1,502,164 9,610 0.64 42 0.44

NY 507,409 886 0.17 222 25.06

MD 467,691 2,025 0.43 1,084 53.53

IL 417,256 860 0.21 162 18.84

FL 382,736 498 0.13 0 0

OR 266,568 935 0.35 71 7.59

UT 152,668 714 0.47 47 6.58

VT 42,655 261 0.61 25 9.58

To get a sense of what State enforcement personnel were encountering and to determine 

related State policies, interviewees were asked the following questions: 

• Is the Federal English-proficiency regulation incorporated into State law? 

• Does the State see problematic regulatory or policy inconsistencies? 

• What languages other than English are most often encountered during inspections and 

traffic stops? 

• How do inspection personnel decide whether a driver has adequate English language 

proficiency during the inspection process? 

• What is done to ensure that the regulation is enforced in a uniform and 

nondiscriminatory manner? 

• What happens once the driver is out of service? What does the driver need to do to 

drive legally? 

• How is the English-proficiency requirement enforced during a compliance review? 

• Are there situations in which English proficiency is especially necessary? 

• How should the current regulatory framework change to improve safety? 

• What is your experience with motor carriers’ assessment of drivers’ English 

proficiency? 

• Does the State collect any data related to incidents (crashes, hazmat spills, etc.) and a 

driver’s English proficiency? 
69 

English Proficiency and State Laws 

Eight of the nine States targeted for this study have either incorporated §391.11(b)(2) into 

State law or have enacted equivalent legislation. California has neither incorporated 

§391.11(b)(2) into its own regulations nor created equivalent rules at the State level. 

Conflicting regulations and policies 

Florida. The enforcement interviewee believed that the inconsistencies between Federal CDL 

regulations and the English proficiency requirement are a problem: 

I think it’s inconsistent in the first place for Feds to say it’s OK to give and 

take the CDL test in a language other than English but then to turn around and 

say you can’t actually drive—I think that’s highly inconsistent. It looks like 

they’re not really serious about one or the other, and in this case it’d be the 

actual requirement to be able to speak English, if they allow the test to be 

taken. 

Oregon. The interviewee pointed to conflicting State policies as part of the problem of 

inadequate motor carrier compliance with §391.11(b)(2): 

As a regulatory group in Oregon, we are encouraged to accommodate all 

other business areas in their own language, but we have to ensure driver 

English proficiency. When company people call, they are not required to speak 

English [so] how can they ensure the driver can speak English? They don’t 

have the tools. 

Languages typically encountered 

Languages that were encountered among CMV drivers at inspections and during other 

roadside enforcement activity, according to State enforcement interviewees, are presented in 

Figure 4 and are listed in order of reported prevalence. What is striking is the number of 

foreign languages that interviewees reported and their consistent dispersion throughout the 

country. Two interviewees made telling comments in this regard. The New York contact 

stated, “What languages do we not encounter is the question.” The contact from Utah said, “I 

think a lot of people would suspect that we encounter mostly Spanish-speaking drivers, but 

lately it’s been people from the Eastern European bloc—Russian, Bosnian, and 

Czechoslovakian—that we have had the most problems with.
70 

Figure 4. Foreign languages spoken by CMV drivers during roadside enforcement, as reported by interviewees.
71 

Inspection procedures 

California. The enforcement interviewee described his State’s position this way: 

Our system of providing translators and officers who speak other languages, 

along with our ability to communicate gesturally, would be a basis for saying that 

requiring English is unjustifiable. I doubt it would get through our legislature, 

and if it did it would probably be struck down as unconstitutional by our courts. 

He said that, before NAFTA took effect, California put its CMV enforcement officers who 

would be deployed to the border through training in conversational Spanish. The State now does 

this for all officers at its training academy. Under California’s interpretation of the CVSA OOS 

criterion that a driver must “communicate sufficiently to understand and respond to official 

inquiries and directions,” enforcement personnel go to great lengths to communicate with drivers 

in various ways, including using a toll-free number that reaches a staff of translators who have 

been screened by the State. If an inspector still feels unable to perform an inspection safely, he or 

she will remove the driver from the vehicle and conduct the vehicle’s inspection with another 

inspector at the wheel. Only in extreme cases is a driver placed out of service for a failure to 

communicate. 

Florida. The most important consideration affecting potential enforcement of Englishproficiency regulations in Florida is the 1999 settlement between State officials and truck driver 

Antonio Cuba. At the time, Florida Statute 316.302(1) fully incorporated the English-proficiency 

language in §391.11(b)(2). Mr. Cuba was cited under this statute after a minor traffic accident, 

when he admitted to the officer that he spoke English only “a little bit.”A county judge ordered 

him to learn to read, write, and speak English within 6 months in order to keep his CDL. Mr. 

Cuba sued in U.S. District Court, and his lawyer argued that the regulation invited arbitrary and 

discriminatory enforcement. At the time, an administrator with the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) was quoted as saying that such citations were not routinely issued 

anymore.36

The lawsuit resulted in a settlement, approved by Florida’s attorney general, stipulating that 

FDOT and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would cease any 

roadside enforcement of §391.11(b)(2). The heads of the two departments were ordered to issue 

a memorandum to this effect to all law-enforcement agents under their control; additional 

guidance was provided to clerks of courts to advise them in handling any citations generated by 

municipal enforcement officers. Under the settlement, the State was required to agree to the 

following statement: 

 

36 Palm Beach Post, Feb. 20, 1998, page 1B. 
72 

The State of Florida maintains that Florida Statute §316.302(l) was designed for 

safety reasons and not to deprive non English speaking persons from driving.37

Today, Florida Statute 316.302 no longer quotes the language §391.11(b)(2):38

1)(a)All owners and drivers of commercial motor vehicles that are operated on 

the public highways of this State while engaged in interstate commerce are 

subject to the rules and regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. parts 382, 385, and 

390-397. 

(b)Except as otherwise provided in this section, all owners or drivers of 

commercial motor vehicles that are engaged in intrastate commerce are subject 

to the rules and regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. parts 382, 385, and 390-397, 

with the exception of 49 C.F.R. s. 390.5 as it relates to the definition of bus, as 

such rules and regulations existed on October 1, 2005. 

The enforcement interviewee said that, if communication problems occur during the driver 

inspection, the inspecting officer would try to connect the driver with another officer having 

proficiency in the driver’s primary language, either by telephone or by directing the driver to 

another location. 

Illinois. The interviewee said that, although drivers are expected to be able to speak English, the 

State police emphasize to inspectors that the language-proficiency requirement means that 

drivers must be “able to communicate sufficiently: 

The guidance we provide is that the person should be able to communicate well 

enough to be able to understand your directions so that you can complete an 

inspection. We use a lot of hand gestures. In the inspection process, you’re going 

to point left and right and you’re going to yell when you want the brake applied. 

We have officers who speak some Spanish, and if they run into somebody with 

broken English they can still do the inspection because they can still communicate 

with that person—even though it may not be 100 percent English, they’re still 

able to communicate. 

If the officer believes, during the course of the inspection, that safety is being compromised due 

to the driver’s inability to speak English, then the driver will be cited and placed out of service. 

The interviewee added that officers have used hand signals for years simply because the noise 

generated by the trucks makes it nearly impossible to hear. He also stated that, in his experience, 

most CMV drivers can understand the hand signals used by officers. 

During the driver inspection, once the driver has provided the logbook, the inspector will start 

with questions regarding origin, destination, and locations of stops and other breaks. The driver’s 

 

37 US District Court, Southern District of Florida, 98-8098-CIV-SEITZ. 38 2007 Florida Statutes, Title XXIII Motor Vehicles, Ch. 316, State Uniform Traffic Control, 

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC302.HTM&Title=-. 
73 

answers may lead to further questions. If the driver’s English proficiency is limiting the 

inspector’s ability to obtain the answers needed to complete the inspection: 

I don’t want to see an inspector come in here and someone be placed out of 

service for not being able to speak English and they were able to complete the 

entire inspection, because I believe that was the intent. That person has to be able 

to communicate well enough for us to do our job. If you feel during the course of 

the inspection that safety is being compromised because of this person’s inability 

to speak, then we’re going to cite that person for not speaking English, for not 

being able to meet the language-proficiency [requirement]. 

During both vehicle and driver inspections, a translator may be used if one is available. In the 

past, inspectors were able to call a commercially available service that provided translation 

services; the interviewee was uncertain whether this service still existed. 

The interviewee described instances he’d heard of with Chinese-speaking drivers carrying cell 

phones: 

The minute they were stopped they had a translator on the phone. They’d hand 

you the cell phone and you were able to converse with them through the 

translator. I’m not sure if this was the actual intent of the regulation, but we are 

able to do that so we were accepting that for awhile, and now that FMCSA has 

changed the rules we’re looking at that again. The driver is the one that needs to 

be able to speak [English] because if you can’t get hold of the other person then 

you’re up a creek again. 

Maryland. According to the interviewee, inspectors “don’t expect or demand that [drivers] have 

a fluent understanding, but we break it down for them. They should be able to understand simple 

instructions. Basically, the threshold is usually “Can you show me your fire extinguisher? Can 

you turn on your lights? Hit your horn.” 

New York. The interviewee felt that enforcement officers need to understand and be aware of 

directions they are conveying and that they must also feel comfortable with the CMV driver’s 

level of English-language comprehension and proficiency. Verbal communication is preferred. 

He added that his personnel place drivers out of service only if they are unable to communicate 

whatsoever: 

We have interpreted the regulation and OOS Criteria liberally; if a driver cannot 

speak English but can understand our commands, we would consider that 

acceptable. As soon as a safety risk is determined on our part, denoting that a 

Level 2 inspection could not be accomplished without the risk of the investigator 

being harmed, the driver would be placed out of service. 

Once a driver hands over the logbook to the inspector, he or she may be subjected to a wide 

variety of questions. According to the interviewee, if the driver’s English proficiency is limited 

and an interpreter is available onsite, that service will be used. The interpreter could be a New 

York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) employee or another driver; alternatively, 
74 

the company might be called and asked to interpret. He said that NYSDOT inspectors often use 

an online translator, www.worldlingo.com. 

While inspectors have not encountered logbooks in foreign languages, it is common to see 

drivers with shipping documents in Chinese in the New York City area and, occasionally, French 

shipping documents in the possession of drivers from Quebec. 

Oregon. According to the interviewee, roadside inspectors, rather than looking for English 

proficiency, apply the CVSA OOS Criteria, interpreting the “communicate sufficiently” rule 

broadly. Completing the review of the logbook in a driver inspection is the secondary objective. 

The primary goal is to complete the vehicle inspection safely, and, to this end, words, gestures, 

flashcards, and interpreters may all be used. Whenever possible, the inspector will take 

advantage of the informal translation services of a co-driver, another driver at the inspection site, 

or a bilingual inspector to complete the review. Extreme breakdowns in communication have led 

to OOS orders, but in most cases the driver is issued a violation without being put out of service. 

Texas. The interviewee said that the State bases its LEP enforcement policy on the 2003 

FMCSA Federal Register notice,39 which indicates FMCSA’s intent that English-language 

proficiency be assessed by motor carriers and not at roadside. 

With respect to driver inspections, the interviewee said that most of the conversation usually 

revolves around determining the veracity and accuracy of the entries in the logbook. The total 

HOS worked on the day of inspection are calculated, as well as the total hours worked in the 

previous 7 days, to determine if there are any current HOS violations or if any violation occurred 

during the previous 7 days worked. The inspector will look at any dated or time-stamped 

documents the driver may have in his or her possession to see if the logbook reflects the same 

dates and times. Using computer software, the inspector can also calculate the amount of time 

necessary to travel from point A to point B to determine if the logbook reflects the appropriate 

amount of time for the trip to be completed within posted speed limits. 

Encountering a logbook in a language other than English is quite uncommon, even at the 

southern border, whereas discovering other documents such as CDLs, registrations, bills of 

lading, and insurance cards in foreign languages is much more common. Again, at the southern 

border, this is not problematic due to the quantity and quality of bilingual capabilities available. 

Away from the border, the inspector would need to either rely on sample documents provided in 

training or to seek help with interpretation. 

Spanish-speaking drivers form the largest proportion of CMV drivers with limited English 

proficiency. The interviewee said that the highway patrol has never had difficulty 

communicating with these drivers because all officers in training receive in-service instruction 

and reference materials in Spanish to facilitate communication with CMV drivers. In addition, 

many of the officers are bilingual; while this is not a specific requirement for the job, there is 

 

39 68 FR 43889. 
75 

increased compensation (stipend pay) for those who can help nonbilingual officers by cell phone. 

He said that virtually all border officers are bilingual. 

The interviewee said that, if the driver speaks a language other than Spanish, the inspector would 

probably arrest the driver and take him or her to the police station. Troopers basically work in 

assigned areas, so they are familiar with interpretive services that are available. Most State jail 

facilities also have interpreters. 

The interviewee further explained that the driver would not be put out of service for LEP unless 

the communication problem was so great that it was a safety concern. When a driver is put out of 

service, the highway patrol notifies the motor carrier to send a replacement driver (which can 

take days), and the truck is escorted to an appropriate area. The interviewee commented that 

there is a tremendous amount of rural territory in the State, so finding a safe location is not a 

problem. If the cargo is live or perishable, the area will be a facility with appropriate safe 

storage. The motor carrier is responsible for all costs incurred, such as storage, maintenance, and 

feeding. 

Utah. The enforcement interviewee stated that vehicle and driver inspections are conducted 

according to CVSA OOS Criteria. Utah’s approach to English-language proficiency is that the 

driver must speak sufficient English to interact with inspectors, including the ability to tell them 

what is in the logbook. During the actual inspection, the driver needs to be able to respond to 

commands and to provide answers. Essentially, if the driver cannot understand the inspector, he 

or she is put out of service “until the company can produce a driver that can speak the English 

language sufficiently.” The interviewee added, “If [the inspectors are] able to resolve the issue 

roadside they would probably not go to the trouble of placing someone OOS who can’t 

understand what OOS is. In most instances, either a co-driver or replacement driver would be 

obtained through the company.” 

Vermont. The interviewee described his State’s approach to the English-proficiency issue as 

“open-minded—we look at the totality of circumstances—we are cognizant of languages.” He 

said that Vermont is active in CVSA and is attentive to the OOS Criteria but that it interprets 

“communicate sufficiently” broadly. “[The NAFTA language has] made it more palatable for the 

border States. You really have to have a hard time communicating with us before we take you 

OOS.” 

He added that Vermont largely tickets drivers for LEP violations rather than putting them out of 

service. This does not mean that inspectors are not looking for effective communication but 

rather: 

When the inspector is doing his driver inspection and thinks the driver is just 

nodding and answering “yes” to everything, he might say, “Do pianos eat their 

dead?” If the driver answers “yes”—I’ve had this situation occur—I start the 

interview again. The incidents requiring an out of service are few and far 

between—it’s kind of a last resort. Working with industry, we take a strong 

educational approach—we will write a ticket when have to, but we highlight it for 

the carrier with a notation of the violation information. 
76 

If a language problem arises while the logbook is being reviewed during the driver inspection, 

the inspector might seek interpretation: 

With the Asian drivers, there are always two of them, and usually one speaks 

enough English. ... One time we had a Canadian driver talk on the phone to his 

dispatcher. I know some States say that if you can’t deal with it, let them go, but 

we don’t want to do that. We do whatever possible to get the information to do 

our job. 

The interviewee added that Vermont inspectors have not had a problem with logbook entries in 

languages other than English. “You’d think we’d run into some in French, but we haven’t. 

Typically, if there’s an issue, it’s because they left it blank.” Asked whether inspectors had 

encountered illiterate drivers, he responded, “I haven’t had one where he marks off his signature 

with an ‘x’ or anything. I have had some whose spelling was atrocious, but not to the point where 

you didn’t know what he was trying to say, or any who said they were illiterate.” 

Uniformity of enforcement 

Illinois. With regard to uniform and nondiscriminatory enforcement, the interviewee commented 

that, due to the lack of clear-cut guidance, the driver’s language proficiency is subject to the 

inspector’s interpretation. The regulation can be interpreted broadly, and meanings can vary 

widely: 

The most uniform thing I can tell them at this point is to follow the guidance we 

can provide. If you don’t feel that this person understands you well enough for 

you to crawl under that truck—when you’re under that truck you’re putting your 

life in that person’s hands—if you don’t feel safe enough to go under that truck, 

then we have a problem. 

We have people in the United States who aren’t the brightest people in the world, 

who have trouble conversing in English and English is their native language. I 

think that this is a tough one, and until the courts provide more guidance it’s 

going to be tough to do it. We just have to rely on the integrity of our people to 

ensure that they’re applying [the regulation] in a nondiscriminatory manner. We 

try to watch to see if an officer is putting a bunch [of drivers] out of service. We 

haven’t become aware of too many instances of that. 

The interviewee added that, “If you’re able to complete an inspection, to go under [the truck], do 

process measurements and everything, and you’ve still put the person out of service for the 

language proficiency, I need an explanation as to why we’re doing that, because I think he’s met 

the criterion.” 

Texas. With regard to uniform enforcement, the interviewee said that Texas has no structured 

process that officers can use. They are advised to use their discretion to determine to their 

satisfaction that the driver lacks English proficiency. The citation must hold up in court, so the 

findings must be documented on the inspection report and the report forwarded to the first-line 

supervisor. The paperwork must then be filled out in order for the Motor Carrier Bureau to start 
77 

the CR process. In other words, officers must be able to articulate to their supervisors, judges, 

and juries why the LEP OOS order was issued. 

Vermont. With regard to uniformity in enforcement, the interviewee said that, because of the 

small number of violations and OOS orders in his State (261 violations and 25 OOS in 5 years), 

he was not worried about inconsistency. He added that, if an officer has an issue in a particular 

circumstance, he or she can discuss it with the supervisor. 

OOS Drivers 

Oregon. The interviewee stated that, once drivers have been put out of service for lack of ability 

to communicate, they would need to learn enough English to communicate with inspection 

personnel before being allowed to go back behind the wheel legally. 

Texas. The interviewee stated that the inspection report specifically explains whatever action 

drivers need to take and when they can drive again. In the case of a LEP OOS, the report might 

read, “You will be able to drive again when you can communicate in English to officials.” Motor 

carriers must submit a certified signature indicating that they have either trained or removed the 

driver from service. 

The interviewee conjectured that one would not find many LEP OOS repeat violations in 

MCMIS but that, with the availability of wireless communications, field officers can access 

national records to determine if a driver had been put out of service in another State. A driver 

who is operating while out of service will be arrested. 

Enforcement during compliance reviews 

California. California has its own system for onsite audits of companies, known as the Biennial 

Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program. This program was enacted with the California 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1988 and requires the participation of any person or 

organization directing the operation of certain trucks and/or trailers. A participant’s operations 

may be suspended immediately if the inspector finds any imminently dangerous condition. Every 

terminal location is inspected at least every 25 months; these inspections are usually scheduled in 

advance, but in the case of a complaint the inspection personnel may arrive unannounced. The 

resulting inspection rating will be deemed “satisfactory,” “unsatisfactory,” or “unsatisfactory/ 

imminent danger,” and the inspector can suspend the operator’s license. California has a large 

staff of inspectors maintaining the BIT program. The enforcement contact said that the program 

is effective in generally encouraging good maintenance programs among State motor carriers. 

Consistent with State policy, the motor carrier is not evaluated with regard to assessing drivers’ 

English-language proficiency. 

Maryland. The interviewee explained that a LEP citation or LEP OOS order can trigger a CR as 

quickly as within 30 days of the citation: 

We try to get hold of them because the company may not be paying attention or 

the safety personnel may not know. A lot of times the driver is no longer with the 

company—it’s just “You can work for us till you get caught.” I think that’s the 

carrier’s way of distancing itself from the problem. 
78 

Asked how LEP is dealt with in a CR, the interviewee responded that he personally does not 

perform CRs (a separate unit handles this task), but: 

From what I’m told about them, they’ll sit down with the company and look at the 

driver-history files. Then they’ll ask, “Did this person speak enough English to 

pass the inspection?” Of course, most of the time the carrier says that they did—

they’re just pulling your chain. They’re trying to distance themselves. Some of 

these people don’t even know the carriers or the drivers. They’re day hires. 

If the motor carrier is located out of State, the interviewee said that his office notifies the local 

FMCSA DA and asks for help. 

Oregon. The interviewee was not aware of any LEP violation that had triggered a CR of an 

Oregon-based motor carrier. 

Texas. Enforcement activity in Texas is focused on the CR. If a driver is found to be lacking 

sufficient English proficiency, the highway patrol will take OOS action for LEP but the driver 

will not receive a citation. Instead, the interviewee said, the highway patrol will transmit the 

information to “our motor carrier folks, and they will pursue a compliance review of the carrier.” 

In the CR, the motor carrier must show how it determined the driver’s language proficiency and 

whether its approach was appropriate to the driver’s licensure level and endorsements. 

In the mandatory CR of a Texas-based carrier, the carrier is asked to articulate how it assesses 

drivers’ language proficiency. If the carrier has a frivolous or nonexistent assessment criterion, it 

is assessed an administrative penalty. The interviewee added, however, that carriers are not 

required to keep records of their proficiency testing of applicants. Mandatory CRs 

notwithstanding, the interviewee believed that relying on carriers without issuing citations to 

drivers was not a particularly effective way of ensuring English proficiency: “We do not believe 

they are doing a good job because we do not aggressively enforce [the criterion]. There must be 

some certainty of sanction to get compliance.” 

If the motor carrier is located somewhere other than in Texas, the highway patrol refers the 

information to the FMCSA division office in Austin, providing all supporting paperwork and 

evidence. The division office then sends this information to the home State’s division office for 

follow-up in a CR. 

Utah. Asked whether a LEP violation or an OOS order for a driver working for a Utah-based 

carrier would trigger a CR, the interviewee responded, “If we encountered a driver that had a 

deficiency in the English language, we would ask for a CR, and I know that DOT would jump on 

that.” However, because the Utah DOT rather than the State highway patrol conducts CRs, he 

was unable to give information on how LEP might be dealt with in that context. 

If a motor carrier is located out of State, the interviewee said that his office would contact the 

FMCSA division office, which would then contact the division office in the home State and ask 

it to conduct a CR: “We work well with FMCSA, and they in turn conduct CRs in other States or 

suggest that their partners in other States conduct CRs. It happens all the time. I think that works 

well.” 
79 

Vermont. According to the interviewee, an OOS order triggers a mandatory CR. The State does 

not conduct CRs but assists the FMCSA division office with this activity. 

Tasks requiring English proficiency 

Asked if there are situations in which adequate proficiency in English, whether spoken or in 

reading ability, was particularly important to ensure safety, State enforcement interviewees’ 

responses were categorically consistent with those in the Phase I interviews and with those in the 

Phase II signage and licensure interviews. However, interviewees added some significant details. 

• Inspector safety. The Maryland, New York, and Utah interviewees spoke specifically 

about concerns regarding the safety of officers during vehicle inspections. Breakdowns in 

communication at this point in the inspection could lead to an OOS order in these States. 

• Escalation during enforcement situations. The Florida enforcement contact was 

especially concerned about the safety of law-enforcement and inspection personnel in 

relation to officer-driver misunderstandings. The most serious incident, according to the 

interviewee, occurred when an officer had advised a driver to remove his hands from his 

pockets. After several verbal requests went unanswered, the officer drew his service 

weapon. Luckily, the situation was resolved successfully, but that might not always be 

the case. 

The Texas interviewee said that a major concern is what can happen when a State trooper tries to 

give specific directions to a driver in an enforcement stop and the driver is slow to respond. He 

explained: 

We are the absolute number-one [illegal] drug-shipment State in the country, and 

we’re also number one in drug apprehensions. Drug transporters are 

increasingly armed; if there is any suspicion of [illegal activity], the trooper must 

secure the scene to determine if weapons are present. Is a driver’s slow reaction 

due to incomprehension, or is he reaching for a weapon? The situation may force 

a trooper to go to another level of force—“Put your hands on the dash, 

etcetera”—forcing escalation. 

• Signage. Contacts from two States, Florida and Oregon, independently offered anecdotes 

related to CMV drivers’ failure to respond to fixed or dynamic signage. In both cases, the 

accounts dealt with trucks violating weight restrictions on bridges. According to the 

Florida interviewee, “A rural bridge in Lee County has been restricted against truck 

traffic due to weight restrictions. A variable message sign announcing this restriction is 

present at the bridge, and there have been numerous violations by drivers who were 

unable to understand the sign.” 

– The Oregon contact said that there has been considerable construction involving the 

interstate system, including much bridge replacement, and that these bridges have 

been assigned weight restrictions: “There was a period of time where we were writing 

a hellacious number of five-, six-,and seven-K bridge-weight-restriction tickets—up 

to 30,000 pounds overweight.” He added that the cited drivers could not read either 
80 

static or DMS weight-restriction signs. The contact added that Spanish-speaking 

drivers frequently misunderstand VMS calling for trucks to pull into weigh stations. 

– The Texas interviewee said that his agency believes that CMV drivers must be 

familiar with basic signs and that this is more of a concern away from the border, in 

San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston, as those cities have cloverleafs with informational 

signs that drivers misread, leading them to change lanes abruptly at the last minute. 

He added that this is a problem all over Texas, “even with our regular U.S. drivers,” 

as there is a tremendous amount of information to process in order to navigate safely. 

– The Utah contact said that his agency is very much concerned about driver inability to 

read DMS as a potential problem. The State has DMS on both its east-west and northsouth interstate systems. 

• Hazmat. The Oregon and Texas contacts both raised potential issues related to hazmat. 

In the words of the Oregon interviewee, “A driver with a flatbed full of chickens can 

have a lower proficiency than a driver of an LNG tanker.” The State expects hazmat 

drivers to be better prepared to deal with hazards and safe handling than other CMV 

drivers, but he added, “I don’t know if it’s an English education issue or a regulatory 

education issue.” 

– Interestingly, both the California enforcement contact and the Vermont interviewee 

indicated that, in their experience, hazmat drivers have a higher level of English 

proficiency than basic CMV drivers. The California contact said that hazmat carriers 

tend to hire drivers with more experience. He believes that these drivers have learned 

to communicate in English over time. The Vermont interviewee said that hazmat 

drivers are more familiar with the paperwork and can communicate with officers, 

functioning at “definitely a higher level of proficiency.” 

Passenger carriers. This topic was not frequently raised as a concern by enforcement 

interviewees. The Maryland contact said that there had been some problems with curbside 

carriers, although his concern appeared to be primarily with the safety and integrity of the 

vehicles. 

– The New York interviewee brought up the same issue: 

We’ve had major concerns, by which I mean in a rare case that happens. 

But we do have a very large community in the city of New York. For 

instance, in Chinatown there are many new bus companies that have 

cropped up offering services to major cities within the Northeast. We have 

concerns about the drivers’ ability to communicate in English. Certainly 

[they can communicate] in Chinese, but it’s questionable as to whether 

they can converse and communicate in English. 

– The Vermont interviewee’s confidence in the advanced skill set of hazmat drivers 

extended to passenger carriers. 
81 

Recommended improvements to current regulatory framework 

The Illinois interviewee described in detail the problems created by lack of uniformity among the 

States—in the languages in which they offer testing, whether or not they allow third parties to 

administer testing, and the extent to which they permit interpreters and how they monitor them. 

His point was that these inconsistencies leave the door open to fraud. 

In the opinion of the New York interviewee, language proficiency is an issue that should be dealt 

with at the time of licensing rather than a roadside enforcement issue. Language proficiency can 

be assessed at a minimum of two separate points during the licensing process: the written test 

and the road test. He argued that it is reasonable to require that applicants for the CDL with a 

hazmat endorsement speak English proficiently. He added that language proficiency and 

comprehension are also issues among native English-speaking drivers. Although rarely 

encountered, some CMV drivers cannot read. 

The Vermont interviewee was of the opinion that a standardized test of English proficiency to be 

offered during licensure testing “might be good.” 

Motor carrier assessment of drivers 

California. The interviewee said that, in general, he does not believe that motor carriers in 

California are doing much to assess the English proficiency of their drivers. He thinks that motor 

carriers take the approach of looking for communications ability appropriate to the tasks 

required. For example, agricultural and food-processing-sector companies typically deal with 

workers who speak only Spanish. In addition, the contact pointed out that carriers are asserting 

the existence of a driver shortage, so they would not fail to hire a candidate just because of lack 

of English-language skills. 

Florida. The Florida interviewee said he believes that having the ability to do roadside 

enforcement would create an incentive for motor carriers to ensure that their drivers can 

communicate according to the regulations. He suggested that, in general, motor carriers based in 

his State are motivated to comply with the regulation: 

Interstate carriers probably are more prone to ensure that their drivers can speak 

English—[otherwise] they can run into problems around the country even if 

they’re based in Florida. When drivers go to other States there is the possibility 

that they will be placed OOS because [lack of English proficiency] is an OOS 

condition. 

He added that the likelihood of a motor carrier complying with the regulation and assessing a 

driver’s English proficiency is also determined by the company’s size: 

For proficiency of the drivers, I’d say for small or local carriers, it’s not done 

very well at all. In fact, we do go in and do compliance reviews on those types of 

carriers when violations come to mind. We follow up with them to make sure that 

they know what they’re supposed to know, either on preventative maintenance, 

which is a State program, or on compliance review. If we see a history of issues, 
82 

that they just continue doing it anyway, then we take a harsher enforcement on 

the compliance review. 

Illinois. It was the interviewee’s perception that a motor carrier’s ability to assess the Englishlanguage proficiency of its drivers does not so much depend on the carrier’s desire to do this; 

rather, it varies depending on the carrier’s own proficiency. The interviewee felt that language 

proficiency is less of a concern with regard to hazmat drivers, possibly because hazmat is a 

specialized area with an involved application process that requires background checks. 

New York. On the basis of the number of times that the State DOT has cited carriers for lack of 

English-language proficiency, the interviewee gave the motor carrier industry high marks for 

assessing the proficiency of drivers. 

Utah. The interviewee thought that, overall, motor carriers do not evaluate the English-language 

proficiency of their drivers very effectively: “Some companies are much more concerned about 

getting a load from point A to point B than others.” 

Vermont. The interviewee stated that “The vast majority [of motor carriers] do a good job 

assessing driver abilities.” In his experience, longer-haul drivers have better English; he has 

observed more language issues with short-haul drivers who have driven in from major 

metropolitan areas such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. “Motor-coach drivers 

usually have good English proficiency—they need to be able to talk to French- and Englishspeaking passengers.” 

State data collection 

Asked whether States had data to back up their various concerns, interviewees’ answers were 

almost always negative. Some gave specific reasons for this. 

The Illinois enforcement interviewee was unaware of any instances in which a driver’s inability 

to speak English had been a contributing factor in a crash. He added that driver distraction and 

inattention are key factors in the majority of crashes. Language proficiency and comprehension 

are also issues of concern among native English-speaking drivers. He suggested that, because 

miscommunication is more often the problem than any other factor in contributing to accidents, 

it has been difficult to determine whether there is a significant language-proficiency issue. 

The New York contact was unaware of any traffic accidents or incidents in which a driver’s lack 

of English-language proficiency was a contributing factor. Furthermore, he had no statistical data 

indicating that language proficiency was an issue that has been raised to a level of major concern 

for the agency. 

The Texas interviewee said that his State doesn’t record “limited English proficiency” as an 

accident cause; the report might instead read “inattentive” or “failed to take steps to prevent 

accident.” He explained that roadway accidents are largely dealt with by local officers in 

metropolitan areas rather than by the State, although “we do have a small contingent of State 

enforcement there.” 
83 

The Utah interviewee said that his State does not keep statistics on accidents or incidents directly 

attributable to drivers’ inability to speak or understand English. 

2.4.2 Phase III Interviews: Motor Carriers and Drivers 

2.4.2.1 Approach 

In Phase III, to gain further insight into the issue of limited English proficiency, it was important 

to hear the perspectives of individual motor carriers and drivers. The interview questions and 

discussions drew on the accumulated insights obtained from background research and previous 

interviews with Federal and State regulators and with contacts from safety and industry 

associations and public interest groups. 

The interviewees were to consist of motor carrier company officials and drivers for these 

companies. Passenger carriers and independent owner-operators were also included. Given the 

range and variety of CMV operations, only a limited number of contacts were interviewed to 

gather initial impressions regarding the regulation. 

Throughout the approximately 50 interviews conducted during Phases I and II of this study, 

interviewees had provided their opinions as to why there are CMV drivers with limited English 

proficiency on the nation’s highways, whether and under what circumstances they perceived that 

the presence of these drivers could pose a risk to public safety, and how they thought that the 

current regulatory framework could be improved. The interviews with individual motor carriers 

and CMV drivers provided the opportunity to examine these opinions from their perspectives. 

The authors also wanted to obtain information on procedures that carriers follow to comply with 

the regulation. 

The themes stated in the previous interviews raised questions that were of interest during the 

motor carrier and driver interviews. These questions included: 

• How does the carrier resolve that §391.11(b)(2) requires the driver to have English 

proficiency but the State CDL tests may be administered in languages other than English? 

• Does a driver shortage put pressure on carriers to hire whoever is available, even if the 

driver lacks English proficiency? 

• Have carriers and drivers encountered situations where a driver whose English is 

hampered by an accent may be unfairly cited for violating §391.11(b)(2)? 

• What company policies and programs are in place to address the issue of English 

proficiency during hiring and training? 

• Specifically for carriers: What action is taken against a driver who is put out of service 

for being in violation of §391.11(b)(2)? 

• Do carriers and drivers agree that hazmat drivers need to have a greater level of English 

proficiency than other CMV drivers due to the risk and potential impact of incidents 

involving these kinds of vehicles and shipments? 
84 

• Is there a concern regarding whether CMV drivers can understand and respond to 

roadway signage? 

• How does the passenger-carrier industry differ? 

Motor Carrier and Driver Selection 

In order to obtain a diverse range of perspectives on those questions, interview candidates from 

various industries, company sizes, and geographic locations were identified. Prospective 

interviewees fell into one of four categories: trucking company, passenger carrier, driver, or 

independent owner-operator. Companies were selected through several methods. Those that had 

participated in the ride-along observation portion of this project were also asked to participate in 

interviews. Others were recommended by Phase I and II interviewees. The final selection method 

was made with use of MCMIS data. Driver interviews were arranged through companies 

participating in interviews. 

Although the authors planned on interviewing independent owner-operators, no interviews in this 

category occurred. The interview team was unsuccessful at making arrangements with 20 

potential contacts. All initial attempts to reach them were by telephone. In four cases, 

preliminary discussion led to faxing the questionnaire: one of these contacts subsequently 

declined, and three others were unresponsive. The team reached one individual who spoke 

mostly Spanish and only a little English; he declined through a family member who was 

interpreting the call. Another potential contact requested a callback at a specified time but was 

ultimately unreachable despite repeated attempts. Voicemails to eight potential contacts were not 

returned. Six other calls were made to numbers that were incorrect or no longer in service. 

Table 17 lists carrier interview contacts and Table 18 lists driver interview contacts. 

Table 17. Phase III Carrier Contacts 

Carrier Size 

(in PUs) 

Type of Cargo40 Hazmat41 State of 

Domicile 

Date of 

Interview 

2,513 Contract carrier No MO 07/12/07 

1,063 Chemicals Yes OK 07/31/07 

400 Beverages and 

empties 

Yes WA 07/25/07 

45 Petroleum products 

to surface mines 

Yes WV 07/12/07 

28 Rock/sand/cement Yes PA 07/17/07 

129 Passenger carrier No MA 08/13/07 

 

40 As represented by interviewee and discussed. 

41 Ibid. 
85 

Table 18. Phase III Driver Contacts 

Years of 

Experience 

Years With 

Carrier 

Hazmat 

Endorsement 

IOO* Language Spoken 

Regularly 

Date of 

Interview 

26 16 Yes No English, Spanish 08/8/07 

40 40 Yes No English, Spanish 08/10/07 

39 17 Yes Yes English 07/25/07 

42 >20 Yes No English 07/30/07 

*Independent owner-operator 

2.4.2.2 Results 

Phase III interviews did not touch on all themes raised in earlier interviews. On some points, 

however, carriers and drivers provided vivid examples and insights that gave additional 

perspective on the questions noted above. 

All motor carriers that were interviewed indicated that they had a policy of hiring only drivers 

who are proficient in English. One reason given by interviewees was that carriers are required by 

regulation to hire drivers proficient in English; failing to comply leaves the carrier open to fines 

and, in the case of an accident, to legal liability. Other reasons included safety in relation to the 

cargo and its handling, and the ability to communicate with customers. Carrier interviewees also 

provided extensive background information on the availability, screening, training, and retention 

of drivers. 

Consistent with the carrier statements, all of the drivers were English-speaking, although two 

reported Spanish as their primary language. All were extensively experienced, with an average 

of 39 years behind the wheel and at least a decade with their current employer. As a result, 

they were not able to describe current hiring practices. 

Every driver interviewed believed that drivers need to have some ability to communicate in 

English. One interviewee had this response: 

If you get on the scale and we’ve got 80,000 pounds of load and you’re over [by] 4,000 to 5,000 

pounds, you’ve got to pull over and go inside, and he’ll tell you to bring your paperwork and 

permits. A lot of the time, you’ve got to pay a fine or to move your fifth wheel. You’ve got to 

even the load, equalize it. You need to speak English. Otherwise, I imagine, you’d be in trouble. 

CDL requirement versus English proficiency 

One carrier interviewee expressed frustration with the seeming contradiction between regulations 

that allow CDL tests to be offered in multiple languages and those that require CMV drivers to 

be proficient in English: 

I was looking on the Internet yesterday, knowing that we were going to be making 

this call, and I read that the State senator of Wisconsin said that they allow the 

CDL test to be taken in English, Spanish, and Russian. I also read that in 

Missouri they allow interpreters. I just find it crazy that the States have the ability 
86 

to do what they want when the Federal regulations say that drivers have to be 

able to read and speak the English language. 

It’s partly a matter of conflicting regulations. At the State level, they’re 

attempting to be consistent with the Civil Rights Act. Title VI and Title VII say 

that you can’t deny employment to someone purely on the basis of national origin. 

And language supposedly is strongly correlated with national origin. So unless 

you can show that there’s a compelling reason for requiring English . . . 

The interviewee further indicated that he has not been challenged by any job applicant who had 

not been hired because of insufficient proficiency in English. 

Driver shortage 

The interviews provided insight into previous references to driver shortages in the trucking and 

passenger-carrier industries. Four of the five trucking interviewees said that finding applicants 

for open positions is not a problem; however, finding qualified candidates—good drivers with 

clean records, a professional demeanor, and a strong work ethic—is difficult. In addition, carriers 

are generally looking for drivers with some experience. Only the largest firms can run 

“finishing” programs that pair new graduates of training schools with mentor drivers to build the 

skills of the former group. 

Both carrier and driver interviewees described a tendency among many drivers to move 

frequently from job to job. Companies that run long hauls, requiring that drivers be away from 

home and virtually live in their vehicles, experience tremendous employee turnover. One 

interviewee reported a 91 percent annual turnover, which, according to the company, is low 

compared with the industry average of 130 percent. Other drivers simply leave the profession. 

Some interviewees’ comments suggested that the high turnover rate is the result of new entrants 

to the industry who are motivated by the high salary potential, the “romance of the road,” and so 

forth, and who then discover how hard a long-haul schedule is on their families and personal 

lives. Consequently, many drivers conclude that they need to find a job with a different schedule 

or to leave the industry. Short-haul carriers whose drivers can go home each evening apparently 

have better retention, but these carriers still reported turnover in the 25 to 30 percent range. 

Interestingly, one medium-sized carrier reported a turnover rate of less than 1 percent annually. 

This carrier was highly specialized as well as geographically localized. The interviewee cited 

phenomenal driver loyalty and attributed it to the company’s practice of hiring through personal 

referrals, offering very good pay and benefits, providing a short-haul schedule that allows drivers 

go home at night, and screening carefully for fit with the company culture. In other words, the 

carrier appeared to be exceptionally attentive to individual staff and their needs. The interviewee 

stated: 

 [Drivers] like the fact that we have company picnics and recognition dinners. 

You never know when the owner, the former owner, and myself and a couple other 

officers will show up with a barbecue grill and some hamburgers, hotdogs, and 

hot sauce as shifts change to just sit around and talk about things. We pride 
87 

ourselves on knowing every employee and their family and history because we 

want them to be part of the [company] family. That’s probably the biggest thing. 

While the retention rate is high, the interviewee noted that the hiring rate was low because the 

carrier had a difficult time finding the right people. 

To summarize, with respect to the concern about a driver shortage, carrier interviewees indicated 

that they hire very carefully and screen for English proficiency. 

Company hiring and training policy 

Company policy related to English proficiency often begins with the screening process. There 

are a number of potential assessment points during the hiring and training process, including: 

• During the recruiter’s telephone conversation with the applicant. 

• When the applicant fills out the application. (A sign of limited English proficiency is if 

the applicant asks someone else to help fill out the application form.) 

• During the interview, if the applicant cannot understand or respond to questions. 

• During orientation. (One company noted that, in its 2-day orientation process, new hires 

watch videos, read books, take written tests, and interact verbally with instructors, all of 

which makes it difficult to hide a lack of English proficiency.) 

• When interacting with the mentor during “finishing” or the instructor during training. 

The employer generally considers a driver who has completed this screening to have sufficient 

English proficiency to meet the criteria specified in §391.11(b)(2). 

In several interviews, the question arose as to whether drivers’ ability to read signage was 

assessed during the training process. One interviewee said yes, while another responded that this 

was tested during the CDL process and therefore was not assessed by the carrier. 

Drivers receiving LEP violations 

Interviewees varied considerably with respect to how their companies deal with drivers who 

have received a LEP violation and have been put out of service. (It should be noted that the 

number of incidents for all of these carriers was very low.) One interviewee stood by the 

company’s screening process, suggesting that the few driver citations received reflected an 

inspector’s impatience (for example, with a driver’s accent or hesitant English) rather than a true 

inability to speak or comprehend the language. Another interviewee said that the carrier 

terminated drivers receiving violations of §391.11(b)(2) but offered to rehire them if they 

improved their English proficiency through school or training. A third interviewee, in contrast, 

said that the carrier had sent drivers with §391.11(b)(2) violations to school to improve their 

proficiency and transferred them to dispatch duties or other non-road activities until they could 

meet the proficiency regulation. 
88 

None of the drivers had ever received a LEP violation; they said they could not recall knowing 

anyone who had. 

Hazmat-specific requirements 

The comments of carrier and driver interviewees who deal with hazmat supported the argument 

that hazmat-endorsed drivers need a higher level of English proficiency than do the average 

CMV drivers. These carriers believe it is absolutely essential that the driver be able to read safety 

and warning signage, to communicate with other drivers and personnel during loading and 

unloading, to read and understand accompanying technical paperwork, and to communicate 

effectively with emergency responders in case of an accident or spill.

Signage 

The comments of both carrier and driver interviewees supported the assertion that CMV drivers 

need to be able to read and respond to road signs, particularly those used for warning or traffic 

direction in atypical circumstances: 

You drive down U.S. highways and you run into construction and trucks detouring 

and things like that. So it’s important that drivers be able to read and understand 

what those signs are saying. It’s kind of like the “over height” sign. Our trucks 

and trailers are 131⁄2-feet long. If they’re doing some bridge construction and 

they’ve got some scaffolding hanging over a bridge that’s 12 feet tall and there’s 

a sign that says “All trucks over 12 feet exit here”—if the driver doesn’t 

understand what that sign says and he goes right on through and hits that 

scaffolding with three guys standing on top of it—that could be a bad, bad deal. 

Passenger-carrier industry 

The availability of driver candidates as well as hiring and training conditions appear to be 

different in the passenger-carrier industry than in other CMV sectors. The industry is made up of 

many small carriers and only a few large companies. The authors were unable to speak with any 

small-company contacts. Therefore, the interviewee’s comments, while illuminating some of the 

issues facing small carriers, should not be generalized to apply to that sector of the industry. 

The passenger-carrier interviewee reported annual turnover ranging from 40 to 60 percent. 

Applicants generally fall into one of three categories: those coming from another bus company, 

those with a CDL who have not previously been passenger-carrier drivers, and “green” recruits, 

who are in the majority. The interviewee attributed the high turnover to several factors. First, a 

large number of applicants drop out during training because they fail to meet the company’s 

standards. Second, there are virtually no training schools for passenger-carrier driving; the 

company trains drivers to obtain a CDL and the passenger endorsement. Some applicants take 

the training and then leave for jobs elsewhere. Third, some drivers simply change jobs 

frequently. Finally, others discover that “it’s not the life for them. They don’t want to be behind 

the wheel driving and dealing with people all day.” 

High-quality customer service is the company’s paramount goal. Its 5-to-8-week training 

program painstakingly tracks the progress of recruits and provides them with feedback. The 
89 

ability to communicate is a core element of training and includes English proficiency. Every 

aspect of training is documented. 

The company takes particular care with respect to preparing drivers to deal with signage. As part 

of the training program, instructors and driver trainees are on the road 5 days a week. When 

trainees are driving, they must talk to the trainer and describe what they see and recognize: 

An example would be a sign that says you’re at a blind driveway or a railroad 

crossing. Our trainer wants to know, mentally, what you’re processing: “Talk to 

me, go through that process.” It’s amazing what you find out, and what people 

are thinking. 

Trainees are also extensively prepared to deal with inspections: 

We tell them, if you go to a weigh station, these are the items that they’re going to 

check, and you’ve got to be prepared. So our drivers know. If our driver gets 

pulled over at a weigh station for, let’s say, a log that is an hour behind and he’s 

placed out of service, that driver is subject to termination. So they know that ... 

logs, all their lights—everything’s got to be there. It’s usually checked prior to 

departure, but that doesn’t mean to say that they always update the log, because 

they don’t. But they are subject to discipline, up to termination. 

The interviewee spoke about the need for passenger-carrier drivers to be proficient in English: 

In the event of an emergency, we want our drivers to be able to communicate with 

the passengers. And because of ADA [the Americans with Disabilities Act], there 

are individuals on board who are hard of hearing, can’t hear, or may need 

special instruction, and it’s up to the driver to communicate . . .