California stands to lose more than $40 million in grant funding for motor carrier safety enforcement because it hasn’t been enforcing English Language Proficiency rules, according to an announcement from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. 

But California contends it already requires English language proficiency for drivers to be licensed and that the federal law does not require ELP tests to be conducted during roadside inspections.

“I put states on notice this summer: Enforce the Trump administration’s English language requirements or the checks stop coming,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a news release.

“California is the only state in the nation that refuses to ensure big rig drivers can read our road signs and communicate with law enforcement. This is a fundamental safety issue.”

The move affects $40.69 million in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding awarded to California. MCSAP provides grant funding for states to conduct roadside inspections, traffic enforcement, safety audits of trucking companies, and public education campaigns. 

“Let me be clear – this is valuable money that should be going to the great men and women in California law enforcement, who we support. Gov. Newsom’s insistence on obstructing federal law has tied my hands,” the secretary added. 

A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office pushed back after Duffy's announcement, telling the Associated Press that statistics show that California commercial truck drivers have a lower crash rate than the national average.

California: We Already Have English Proficiency Laws

In late September, the general counsel for the California State Transportation Agency, Alicia Fowler, said in a letter to FMSCA’s chief counsel that the state already fully complies with federal laws. 

“California’s laws, regulations, standards, and orders are either identical to or have the same effect as the federal safety requirements — including the English language proficiency requirement,” Fowler wrote.

California vehicle code, she contended, states that "[The DMV] shall not issue a driver’s license to, or renew a driver’s license of, any person: … Who is unable to read and understand English used in highway traffic and directional signs.'"

"Thus, California incorporates and enforces an English language proficiency requirement by incorporating it into its testing and licensure process,” Fowler wrote.

Fowler also said California “has adopted the April 1, 2024 version of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s out-of-service criteria in its entirety, consistent with the federal regulations.” She also argued that the state is “appropriately implementing” its statewide plan for commercial vehicle safety.

“There is no federal requirement that English language proficiency be established through ‘roadside inspections,’ ” Fowler wrote, and the federal regulation requiring English language proficiency has not been amended to require roadside tests.

"And the FMCSA’s guidelines on assessing English language proficiency do not obligate State Lead Agencies to conduct examinations or impose enforcement procedures during roadside inspections.”

What Are the English Language Proficiency Requirements for Truck Drivers?

Federal motor carrier safety regulation 49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2) says in order to be qualified to drive a motor vehicle, a person needs to be able to "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.” 

However, in 2016, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration put out guidance that violators were no longer to be placed out of service.

As part of the Trump administration's push to make English the official language of the United States, Duffy in May signed an order officially rescinding that guidance. 

Under the new guidance, commercial motor vehicle drivers who don't pass an English language proficiency test during a safety inspection will be placed out of service.

On August 26, Duffy warned California, Washington, and New Mexico that they were in danger of losing federal funds if they failed to adopt and enforce ELP requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers. He gave them 30 days to comply. California, he said, is the only state that has refused.

According to a published report over the summer, the California Highway Patrol said it wasn't enforcing the ELP requirements because it's not a state regulation, but a federal one.

Why Is DOT Pulling MCSAP Funding From California?

It may seem counterintuitive to pull funding for commercial vehicle enforcement in response to a lack of commercial vehicle enforcement, but the DOT announcement explains that to remain eligible for MCSAP funding, "states must adopt and enforce laws, regulations, standards, and orders on commercial motor vehicle safety that are compatible with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) in 49 CFR parts 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396, and 397."

FMCSA has determined that California has not "adopted a compatible law, regulation, standard, or order to implement the English language standard in 49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2)."

Therefore, FMCSA is withdrawing approval of California’s FY24 and FY25 Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan effective October 15. No expenses incurred after that date will be reimbursed from FY24 or FY25 MCSAP funding.

For FMCSA to restore funding, the DOT said, California must adopt and actively enforce a law, regulation, standard, or order that is compatible with the federal ELP requirement for commercial drivers.

Note to readers: This story was updated on October 22 to add information on California's position.