The bill amends 49 U.S.C. §31308(1) to add a statutory requirement that commercial motor vehicle operators “can read and speak the English language sufficiently” to converse with the public, understand highway signs, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records. It also directs that any driver found noncompliant with 49 C.F.R. §391.11(b)(2) (or its successor) be declared out of service by an authorized enforcement officer.
This matters because it moves an English-skill criterion from regulation into statute and ties a specific enforcement consequence—out‑of‑service status—to noncompliance. Carriers, state licensing authorities, enforcement personnel, and non‑English‑proficient drivers will need to adjust to a clearer, but operationally undefined, statutory standard for language ability.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new statutory subparagraph to 49 U.S.C. §31308(1) requiring drivers to read and speak English sufficiently for four enumerated tasks. It makes noncompliance with 49 C.F.R. §391.11(b)(2) a trigger for out‑of‑service orders by enforcement officers.
Who It Affects
Interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle drivers, carriers that employ them, FMCSA and state driver licensing officials, and roadside enforcement personnel who issue out‑of‑service orders.
Why It Matters
By codifying language skills in statute and attaching an immediate enforcement tool, the bill narrows discretion and raises compliance exposure for drivers and carriers—while leaving testing methods and remediation procedures undefined.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new, explicit English-language requirement into federal statute by amending 49 U.S.C. §31308(1). The statutory text lists four concrete abilities: converse with the general public, understand highway traffic signs and signals in English, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records.
Those four tasks define the substantive content of “English proficiency” for purposes of commercial driver qualifications.
Separately, the bill connects that statutory requirement to enforcement on the road. It instructs that any driver an authorized enforcement officer determines to be noncompliant with 49 C.F.R. §391.11(b)(2) (or a successor regulation) must be declared out of service.
In practice, that makes failure to meet the English standard an immediate basis for removal from driving until the operator satisfies whatever return-to-service criteria apply.The bill also includes a narrow rule of construction preserving other out‑of‑service authorities and the North American Standard Out‑of‑Service Criteria. In short, it does not limit enforcement tools already available for other safety defects or regulatory violations; it simply adds one more explicit trigger for roadside action.
The statutory insertion and the enforcement directive act together: one defines the skillset, the other gives roadside officers an explicit statutory hook to take drivers out of service for lacking it.What the bill does not do is lay out how agencies or states must measure or certify the English abilities it lists, nor does it create an administrative appeal or remediation process inside the statute. Those implementation details remain with FMCSA, state licensing agencies, and enforcement guidance—meaning the practical shape of testing, documentation, and return-to-service procedures will be determined outside the text of this bill.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 49 U.S.C. §31308(1) by adding subparagraph (C) that enumerates four specific English-language abilities required of commercial motor vehicle operators.
It explicitly ties noncompliance with 49 C.F.R. §391.11(b)(2) (or any successor regulation) to an out‑of‑service order that an authorized enforcement officer must declare.
The four listed abilities are: conversing with the general public, understanding highway traffic signs and signals in English, responding to official inquiries, and making entries on reports and records.
A rule of construction in the bill preserves other out‑of‑service authorities and the North American Standard Out‑of‑Service Criteria; it does not replace existing enforcement tools.
The statute does not define testing standards, acceptable proof of proficiency, remediation steps, or an administrative appeals process—those implementation choices are left to regulators and enforcement guidance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Connor’s Law
This is the bill’s caption; it has no operational effect but signals congressional intent to frame the measure as a targeted safety and qualifications statute. Short titles are useful for citation and for regulatory and enforcement guidance that will follow.
Adds statutory English-proficiency requirement for commercial drivers
The amendment inserts a new subparagraph (C) into the enumerated qualifications in §31308(1). Rather than leaving the language-skill requirement solely in regulation, the bill codifies four concrete tasks that constitute sufficient English ability. Because §31308 sits in the statutory framework that authorizes driver qualification standards, this change elevates the language requirement from a purely regulatory expectation to a statutory qualification criterion that regulators and courts will reference.
Authorizes enforcement officers to declare drivers out of service for noncompliance
This provision requires that an authorized enforcement officer declare a driver operating a commercial motor vehicle out of service if the officer determines the driver fails to comply with 49 C.F.R. §391.11(b)(2) or a successor regulation. In practical terms, roadside inspectors gain an explicit statutory basis to remove a driver from service based on the English-proficiency standard; the text links the statutory qualification to an immediate enforcement consequence.
Preserves other out‑of‑service authorities and criteria
The bill clarifies it does not alter any other grounds for out‑of‑service orders or existing procedures under federal law, regulation, or the North American Standard Out‑of‑Service Criteria. This keeps the new language standard additive rather than substitutive: inspectors still rely on the broader set of safety criteria while having this additional, explicit trigger available.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Roadway users and the general public — Improved communication between drivers and the public and clearer comprehension of signs and signals could reduce misunderstandings and certain crash risks.
- Roadside enforcement officers — The bill gives them an explicit statutory basis to take action when a driver cannot meet the listed English-language tasks, reducing ambiguity during inspections.
- FMCSA and state regulators — A statutory standard reduces reliance on interpretive guidance alone and can simplify regulatory enforcement posture when coordinating interstate safety rules.
- Carriers that have documented English-capable workforces — Clear statutory criteria reduce uncertainty about compliance expectations and may lower liability exposure tied to communication failures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Drivers who lack sufficient English proficiency — They face immediate removal from service at roadside until they meet an undefined standard, threatening income and employment continuity.
- Carriers employing non‑English‑proficient drivers — Firms may incur recruiting, training, and administrative costs to replace or upskill drivers, and face operational disruptions if drivers are declared out of service.
- State driver licensing agencies and testing centers — States may need to revise testing, certification, and documentation processes to align with the statutory criteria, potentially requiring new resources.
- Enforcement agencies and roadside inspectors — Officers will shoulder increased responsibility to assess language ability at the roadside, which raises training needs and potential exposure to contested enforcement actions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—improving safety and clarity in roadside communications versus preserving access to employment for drivers who are not fully English‑proficient—by making enforcement clearer but leaving undefined how to fairly and consistently measure proficiency, remediate deficiencies, or avoid discriminatory enforcement.
Although the bill specifies what counts as sufficient English ability in four task-oriented bullets, it leaves the most consequential implementation questions unanswered. The statute does not define how officers must measure those abilities at the roadside, what evidence drivers must carry, how a medical or cognitive impairment intersects with language assessment, or what remediation and documentation will allow a driver to return to service.
Those gaps will fall to FMCSA rulemaking, state licensing practices, and enforcement guidance—creating a predictable period of regulatory uncertainty after enactment.
There are also procedural and civil‑rights risks embedded in highway enforcement of language skills. Language assessment at the roadside risks subjectivity, inconsistent applications across jurisdictions, and potential discriminatory outcomes if officers rely on accents, limited vocabulary, or situational stress as proxies for proficiency.
Finally, because the bill makes noncompliance an immediate basis for removal from service, carriers operating in tight labor markets confront a tension between meeting safety standards and maintaining operations; enforcement could exacerbate driver shortages in sectors that have relied on non‑English‑proficient labor without creating clear pathways for remediation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.