Shippers to be Required to Check for English Language Proficiency? | DOT Secretary Suggests Shippers to be Regulated – But Does DOT Have That Authority?
- Tyler Biddle
- Nov 4
- 2 min read
On October 30, 2025, Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy asserted on Fox News that he intended on holding shippers “accountable” for enabling non-English-proficient truck drivers.
If you haven’t been following the news, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently (June 2025) started forcing drivers out-of-service related to English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), drivers need to be able to read and speak English sufficiently to be able to understand road signs and converse with law enforcement. Currently, the motor carriers that hire their drivers are (naturally) required to ensure their drivers can speak English and read road signs, among many other driver qualification requirements.
If Secretary Duffy pushes DOT/FMCSA to enforce ELP requirements on shippers, what specifically would that mean for shippers?
Of course, we don’t know yet. But, on the outset, there is a question whether the DOT has the authority to regulate shippers here.
In review of the statutory and regulatory landscape, I do not believe DOT has this authority. Title 49 of the U.S. Code and the DOT’s regulations generally regulate motor carriers, freight brokers, freight forwarders, railroads, and pipelines. However, the DOT does have authority to regulate shippers with respect to hazardous materials, and one other specific issue: hours-of-service coercion.
In conjunction with MAP-21 (Moving America Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act), FMCSA promulgated a rule prohibiting motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries from coercing drivers to violate hours-of-service rules. 49 C.F.R. § 390.6. That regulation was promulgated pursuant to U.S. Code 49 U.S.C. § 31102, which specifically sought to regulate shippers.
Significantly, the Final Rule implementing 390.9 includes a comment from FMCSA:
Although sec. 32911 of MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), it did not amend the jurisdictional definitions in 49 U.S.C. 31132, which specify the reach of FMCSA's authority to regulate motor carriers, drivers, and CMVs. Thus, it appears that Congress did not intend to apply all of the FMCSRs to shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries that are not now subject to those requirements. (Motor carriers, of course, have always been subject to the FMCSRs.) Instead, sec. 32911 prohibited these entities from coercing drivers to violate most of the FMCSRs. This necessarily confers upon FMCSA the jurisdiction over shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries necessary to enforce that prohibition.
In summary, based on FMCSA's own commentary, this seems to indicate that Congress only provided DOT with limited authority to regulate shippers with respect to the “coercion rule.” Without further statutory authority, it is unclear what authority Secretary Duffy would cite towards asserting ELP requirements on shippers.
There is a potential the DOT could point to 49 U.S.C. § 31133, which permits the Sec. of DOT to: “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate…” But, I think that may be too broad to provide DOT with the authority to further regulate shippers.
We’ll have to see how this plays out, but shippers should keep tabs on this issue. And, if you follow Shippers Interest Consulting – we’ll keep you up to date!
Comments