§391.11 Qualifications of drivers

Question 1: What effect does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act have on the minimum age requirement for an interstate driver?

Guidance: None. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, recognizes an exception when age is a bona fide occupational qualification. 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1).

Question 2: May a motor carrier be exempt from driver qualification requirements by hiring a driver leasing company or temporary help service?

Guidance: No. The FMCSRs apply to, and impose responsibilities on, motor carriers and their drivers.

Question 3: May a motor carrier lawfully permit a person not yet qualified as a driver in accordance with §391.11 to operate a vehicle in interstate commerce for the purpose of attending a training and indoctrination course in the operation of that specific vehicle?

Guidance: No. If the trip is in interstate commerce, the driver must be fully qualified to operate a CMV.

Question 4: Does the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 require a motor carrier to place a returning veteran in his/her previous position (driving interstate) even though he/she fails to meet minimum physical standards?

Guidance: No. The Act does not require a motor carrier to place a returning veteran who does not meet the minimum physical standards into his/her previous driving position. The returning veteran must meet the physical requirements and obtain a medical examiner’s certificate before driving in interstate operations.

Question 5: Would a driver who fails to meet the hearing standard under 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) but has obtained an exemption from that requirement, be considered unqualified under the English language proficiency requirement in 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) if the driver cannot communicate orally in English?

Guidance: No, if the hearing impaired driver with an exemption is capable of reading and writing in the English language. In that circumstance, the hearing impaired driver satisfies the English language requirement. The absence of an ability to speak in English is not an indication that the individual cannot read and write in English sufficiently to communicate 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.

Question 6: What should a motor carrier do to assess a CMV driver’s English language proficiency (ELP) during the driver qualification process?

Guidance: Because 49 CFR 391.11(a) prohibits a motor carrier from requiring or permitting a person to drive a CMV unless that person is qualified, a motor carrier should assess a driver’s qualifications, including the ability to comply with the ELP requirements of 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2).

Motor carriers may conduct this assessment using various methods. The assessment should include processes to evaluate whether the driver is able to sufficiently communicate with law enforcement officers (e.g., during a roadside inspection) and to understand highway traffic signs that they may encounter while driving.

FMCSA recommends that a motor carrier manager conduct a driver interview in English and include inquiries that would show whether the driver could answer questions related to:

1. The origin and destination of a recent or planned trip.
2. The amount of time spent on duty, including driving time and the record of duty status (or logbook).
3. The information contained in the driver's license.
4. Information contained in shipping papers (actual or sample shipping papers, including hazardous materials shipping papers, if applicable) for the load transported/to be transported.
5. Vehicle equipment subject to inspection.

Because the driver interview is a means of establishing the driver’s ability to respond to official inquiries by speaking English sufficiently, the manager should inform the driver that the driver should respond to the inquiries in English. Tools to facilitate communication such as interpreters, I-Speak cards, cue cards, smart phone applications, and On-Call Telephone Interpretation Service should not be used during the driver interview, as those tools may mask a driver’s inability to communicate in English.

FMCSA also recommends that the manager explain to the driver that the ELP regulation requires the driver to sufficiently understand and explain the meaning of U.S. highway signs. The manager should select various signs from the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/) as well as examples of dynamic message signs the driver may encounter while operating a CMV and ask the driver to explain the meaning of the selected signs. The driver’s explanation may be in any language, provided the manager is able to understand the driver’s explanation. After the successful completion of the ELP assessment, the manager may proceed with the rest of the interview in a language other than English, as appropriate.

Question 7: Direction from FMCSA [enforcement policy issued May 20, 2025] indicates that if a driver fails the first portion of the [English language proficiency] evaluation, the inspector should not proceed to the signs portion. As a result, CVSA believes a driver can only fail one portion of the evaluation – no driver should be cited for failing both portions and only one out-of-service condition exists. However, subsequent materials from FMCSA seemed to indicate that a driver could fail “either or both portions” of the evaluation. Can FMCSA please confirm which is correct?

Guidance: FMCSA’s internal agency enforcement policy (MC-SEE-2025-0001) states if the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver does not successfully complete Step One of the procedure (Driver Interview), there is no need to perform Step Two (Highway Traffic Sign Recognition Assessment). FMCSA enforcement personnel have been trained to skip Step Two of the ELP assessment procedure if the CMV driver does not successfully complete Step One. They have also been trained to cite non-compliant drivers in accordance with the enforcement policy.

Question 8: Has FMCSA implemented hardcoding to ensure that all violations of 49 CFR §391.11(b)(2) are out-of-service violations (with the exception of the exempted applicability for drivers operating commercial motor vehicles in the border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border)? If not, does the agency intend to do so? When?

Guidance: Yes. The three violation codes were implemented in SafeSpect on June 25, 2025. SafeSpect does not allow enforcement personnel to alter the out-of-service designation of the three violation codes associated with 49 CFR §391.11(b)(2): 391.11B2Q; 391.11B2S; and 391.11B2Z. This ensures that each violation of 49 CFR §391.11(b)(2) associated with violation code 391.11B2Z (relating to commercial zones) will be appropriately marked as a non-out-of-service violation and that all other violations of 49 CFR §391.11(b)(2) (associated with violation codes 391.11B2Q and 391.11B2S) will be appropriately marked as out-of-service violations.

Question 9: Please clarify the meaning/intent of the language on page 5 of the guidance [enforcement policy issued May 20, 2025, related to English language proficiency] that reads “when warranted, initiating an action to disqualify the driver from operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce.”

Guidance: This phrase refers to an FMCSA process for initiating a driver qualification proceeding. In accordance with 49 CFR §386.11(a), FMCSA may commence a driver qualification proceeding by issuing a letter of disqualification. This process may not be applicable to other enforcement agencies. FMCSA recommends any other enforcement agency consult with their legal counsel on the applicability of this process for their use.

Question 10: The guidance [enforcement policy issued May 20, 2025, related to English language proficiency] includes an exception in the “Applicability” section for drivers “operating commercial motor vehicles in the border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border.” The guidance directs inspectors to cite the violation but not place the driver out of service. CVSA is seeking clarification regarding:

Question a: Who this exception applies to?

Question b: If a driver with a valid U.S. CDL, operating for a U.S. domiciled company is stopped in a commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexico border and fails the ELP evaluation, should they be placed out of service?

Question c: Please define “border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border,” for clarity.

Guidance a: FMCSA’s internal agency enforcement policy (MC-SEE-2025-0001) applies to all drivers operating a CMV in interstate commerce in the United States. The exception in the enforcement policy applies to those drivers inspected while operating a CMV in the border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, irrespective of the driver or motor carrier’s country of domicile or whether the driver holds a U.S. CDL, Mexican Licencia Federal de Conductor, or Canadian CDL.

Guidance b: No. When performing inspections of drivers operating commercial motor vehicles in the border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, enforcement personnel should cite non-compliant drivers for the violation but should refrain from placing the driver out-of-service or initiating an action to disqualify the driver.

Guidance c: Commercial zones are defined in 49 CFR Part 372, subpart B. In general, the size of the commercial zones for border municipalities are based on the size of the population of the municipality (see 49 CFR §372.241). The size ranges from 3 to 20 miles. In addition, the Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties, TX; the City of El Paso, TX; and the New Mexico commercial zones (see 49 CFR §§372.237, 372.247, and 372.245) are also considered “border commercial zones along the U.S.-Mexico border.”