FMCSA has issued new guidance on enforcing the English language proficiency (ELP) requirement for commercial drivers at the US-Mexico border. Drivers who do not meet ELP can still be cited, but they should not be placed out of service zones, reducing the risk of immediate shutdowns for cross-border and drayage operations. The agency stresses the exception is geographic, since inspections outside those zones can still trigger out-of-service actions under updated Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) criteria, outlining a step-by-step evaluation starting with the driver interview.
US regulators have moved to reduce immediate disruption to cross-border trucking while keeping the English-language requirement for commercial drivers firmly in place. Recent guidance from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) confirms that drivers who do not meet the English language proficiency (ELP) standard may still be cited, but should not be placed out of service (OOS) when the inspection occurs inside designated border commercial zones along the US–Mexico border.
The clarification matters since the ELP has become more operationally consequential since mid-2025, when the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) updated its North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria to allow inspectors to place drivers out of service for failing to satisfy the English requirements under 49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2), referencing FMCSA’s enforcement guidance memo MC-SEE-2025-0001. Meaning that a long-standing requirement effectively became more enforceable at roadside inspections, prompting concern among fleets, drayage operators, brokers and shippers that stricter application could delay border crossings and tighten capacity availability.
FMCSA’s newly published FAQs, developed around CVSA training discussions, draw a bright operational line between inspections conducted within border commercial zones and those conducted outside them. FMCSA states its internal enforcement policy applies to all CMV drivers operating in US interstate commerce, but the exception applies to drivers inspected while operating in border commercial zones along the US-Mexico border, regardless of whether the driver holds a US CDL, Mexico’s Federal Driver’s License, or a Canadian CDL.
In practice, this means that if an inspection takes place inside a designated border commercial zone, an officer can issue a citation for failing the English requirement, but the driver is not supposed to be placed out of service there. That reduces the risk of an immediate shutdown, where the truck is stopped on the spot and cannot continue moving, while the violation is still recorded.
FMCSA also clarified how the evaluation itself should be applied at roadside. The agency’s FAQ materials emphasize a stepwise process and note that if a driver does not successfully complete the initial driver interview component, inspectors do not need to proceed to additional steps, such as traffic sign recognition.
What Counts as a “Border Commercial Zone”
The border-zone exception depends on geography, and FMCSA points to federal commercial zone regulations in 49 CFR Part 372, Subpart B. These rules define “commercial zones” and list specific zone configurations and exceptions. In the border context, the eCFR includes dedicated sections covering a zone comprising Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties, Texas; the City of El Paso, Texas; and a New Mexico commercial zone provision.
For cross-border operations, that geography can matter as much as the rule itself. Many Mexico-US moves are structured to stay in short-haul corridors near ports of entry, either for drayage, transloading, or handoff to a US carrier, precisely the operating pattern that aligns with commercial-zone boundaries. At the same time, any dispatch that pushes beyond those defined areas may expose drivers and carriers to full OOS consequences if ELP is not satisfied.
FMSCA Data
New FMCSA inspection data illustrates how quickly the enforcement policy is reshaping outcomes at the border. As of Jan. 30, Mexico-domiciled inspections reflected 27,458 English-proficiency related violations, but only 110 resulted in out-of-service orders, consistent with an enforcement approach that allows citations without OOS inside border commercial zones.
Over the same period, US-domiciled records showed 21,821 violations in the same English-proficiency categories and 12,547 OOS orders, highlighting how sharply OOS outcomes can differ depending on where and how the rule is applied.
FMCSA’s FAQ package also speaks to implementation mechanics. The agency notes it has used inspection-system coding to distinguish border-zone cases from situations where OOS remains applicable, supporting more consistent enforcement outcomes across jurisdictions. This matters for compliance teams tracking roadside results because it affects how violations appear in inspection histories and how fleets interpret risk by lane, crossing, and operating footprint.
The policy shift is also unfolding against a national compliance narrative. MBN reporting on ATA’s stance described a broader crackdown posture, in which regulators are seeking to eliminate weak points in training and compliance, while treating operational requirements, such as the ability to understand signage, respond to officials, and complete required records, as safety-critical expectations. In that environment, ELP has moved from a background requirement to a practical operating constraint that carriers must manage actively.
This comes as a response to US President Donald Trump’s order “Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers,” signed on April 28, 2025, mandating stronger enforcement of English proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
“Proficiency in English should be a non-negotiable safety requirement. This is common sense,” said Trump.