Testimony Before the Texas Senate Committee on Transportation

Ammon Blair, TPPF Senior Fellow

Dear Chairman Parker, Vice-Chairman West, and Distinguished Members of the Committee:

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you.

My name is Ammon Blair. I am a Senior Fellow with the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Secure & Sovereign Nation Initiative and a consultant to the Operation Lone Star Task Force. I previously served as a United States Border Patrol Agent in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and served more than two decades in the United States Army. My work focuses on border security, transnational criminal organizations, terrorism-related threat environments, and state homeland-defense frameworks.

This committee has been charged to study commercial driver license issuance, third-party training and testing, English-language proficiency, and law-enforcement policies governing roadside verification of a CDL and associated documents (Texas Senate Committee on Transportation, 2026).

Those subjects form one enforcement problem rather than four separate ones. A licensing safeguard fails if an applicant can defeat it through a compromised provider. A valid-looking credential fails as proof of qualification when the person presenting it did not lawfully earn it. A roadside inspection fails when the officer cannot determine whether the driver remains qualified, whether the carrier possesses the required operating authority, or whether the actual freight movement falls within that authority. An enforcement system built around fixed inspection locations also loses effectiveness when a truck leaves the interstate, moves onto a farm-to-market or county road, and encounters an officer who lacks the same specialized certification, statutory powers, information access, or communications capability available to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).

Texas law already governs much of this activity. The remaining enforcement failures occur where the responsible officer lacks the authority, training, information, territorial reach, equipment, funding, or referral process needed to connect a roadside fact to the consequence that state or federal law already provides.

The Legislature can close those gaps without lowering commercial-vehicle inspection standards or interfering with lawful international trade.

Texas’s Own CDL Experience Establishes Why Credential Integrity Cannot End at Issuance

Texas’s own licensing system provides the clearest starting point.

A nationwide review by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) resulted in a preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance for Texas. FMCSA examined a sample of 123 Texas non-domiciled credentials and identified 60 that did not comply with applicable federal requirements concerning the relationship between the credential’s validity period and the holder’s lawful-presence documentation. FMCSA attributed much of the problem to failures in the process used to translate immigration-document validity into the CDL record. Texas remains among the states for which FMCSA issued a preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance (FMCSA, 2025).

Texas has taken corrective action. Effective June 1, 2026, FMCSA authorized DPS to resume non-domiciled CDL and commercial learner permit (CLP) issuance for H-2A temporary agricultural workers. DPS states that Texas currently has approval to process H-2A transactions, although H-2B and E-2 transactions remain pending FMCSA approval. Qualifying applicants must appear in person, and the federal rule limits a non-domiciled credential to one year or the applicable immigration-validity period, whichever is shorter. Drivers who already possess a valid non-domiciled credential may continue to use it until the printed expiration date unless another legal basis requires earlier action (DPS, 2026c; 49 C.F.R. § 383.73).

Current federal controls illustrate the scope of the corrective process. Section 383.73 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, requires substantive participation by at least two driver-licensing personnel in specified document-processing and verification functions, subject to narrow staffing exceptions. For applicants domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, the state must verify lawful immigration status through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, retain required records, complete specified non-domiciled transactions in person, prevent temporary commercial privileges while immigration verification remains unresolved, and downgrade the commercial privilege when federal information establishes that the holder no longer possesses the required lawful status. The rule also requires computer controls capable of stopping issuance when required record checks produce disqualifying or suspect results (49 C.F.R. § 383.73).

A CDL therefore does not establish that every qualification attached to the driver will remain valid until the printed expiration date. Commercial driving eligibility can change after issuance.

Since November 18, 2024, state driver-licensing agencies have had to remove commercial driving privileges from drivers who enter a “prohibited” status in FMCSA’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. A driver in prohibited status cannot lawfully operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) until completing the federal return-to-duty process and regaining eligibility. State driver-licensing agencies also query the Clearinghouse during specified CDL and CLP issuance, renewal, upgrade, and transfer transactions (FMCSA, 2024; 49 C.F.R. § 383.73).

Medical qualification presents another moving component. Texas began accepting medical certification information electronically through National Registry II (NRII) on March 23, 2025, and stopped accepting paper medical certificates for state licensing purposes on April 10, 2026. DPS warns that failure to maintain a required valid medical certificate can result in downgrade of commercial driving privileges (DPS, n.d.-a). FMCSA has also created a temporary interstate exception during the NRII transition. From April 11 through October 11, 2026, qualifying interstate CDL and CLP holders and motor carriers may rely on a paper Medical Examiner’s Certificate (MEC) as proof of medical certification for up to 60 days after issuance (FMCSA, 2026b).

Roadside verification therefore requires more than reading an expiration date from a physical credential. The officer needs access, appropriate to the officer’s legal role, to current commercial privilege, disqualification, out-of-service, medical, Clearinghouse-related, endorsement, restriction, and carrier information.

Texas’s federal audit should serve as the starting point for legislative oversight rather than as an accusation against DPS. DPS corrected part of the problem. The remaining question is whether comparable controls now connect every other point at which a driver’s legal qualification can change.

Foreign Credentials, Texas Law, and Unauthorized Domestic Transportation

The Mexican commercial-license issue demonstrates why a credential that exists in a government database does not necessarily prove that the holder lawfully qualified for it.

On December 17, 2024, DPS filed a formal petition with FMCSA concerning reciprocal recognition of Mexican commercial credentials. DPS alleged that corrupt Mexican transportation officials and third parties had facilitated digital Licencias Federales de Conductor (LFCs) for people who had not completed legitimate applications or testing, including foreign nationals and Americans unable to obtain or retain qualifying U.S. commercial credentials. DPS also described roadside encounters involving individuals who reportedly acknowledged paying for credentials without completing the ordinary qualification process (DPS, 2024).

Those allegations present a different problem from an ordinary counterfeit. An officer can investigate a fictitious document because the document itself is false. A corruptly procured credential can return as a genuine government record if someone entered the information into the legitimate issuing system. A database response may prove that the record exists without establishing that the applicant completed the required knowledge test, skills test, medical qualification, identity verification, and domicile requirements.

The United States did not base reciprocal recognition of Mexican commercial credentials merely on the existence of a Mexican licensing agency. The bilateral arrangement depended upon specified qualification standards. FMCSA previously reviewed Mexican licensing and testing facilities to determine whether those standards remained reliable. Federal reviewers visited nine training centers in Nuevo Laredo, Tultitlán, Veracruz, Guadalajara, Tijuana, Monterrey, Tlaxcala, and Mexico City. The review found two schools using passing scores below the required 80% threshold, one school administering a 71-question examination when the memorandum of understanding required at least 80 questions, and several schools whose examinations omitted one or two of the required 20 subject areas. Mexican transportation authorities agreed to corrective action (Pilot Project on NAFTA Trucking Provisions, 2011).

FMCSA therefore has an established model for reviewing Mexico’s current digital LFC system. A renewed federal integrity review requested by Texas could examine identity controls, domicile, examination records, medical qualification, issuing locations, examiner history, credential amendments, duplicate identities, and the information available to U.S. officers attempting to verify a credential.

Current Texas law already reaches parts of the driver-level problem. House Bill 4337 amended Transportation Code § 522.015 and related provisions governing qualifying foreign credentials (HB 4337, 2023). Section 522.011 generally prohibits a person from operating a CMV unless the driver possesses the required CDL, qualifies under an applicable permit provision, or is authorized under § 522.015. A violation of § 522.011 is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. Following a qualifying prior conviction under that section within the preceding year, the maximum fine increases to $1,000. (Tex. Transp. Code § 522.011).

Section 522.003 expressly classifies a violation of § 522.015 as a “serious traffic violation.” Two serious traffic violations arising from separate incidents within a three-year period trigger a 60-day CMV disqualification, and three serious traffic violations arising from separate incidents within the same period trigger a 120-day disqualification. (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 522.003(25), 522.081(a)).

Section 522.015 becomes especially important when a holder of a foreign commercial credential operates beyond a Texas county bordering Mexico. The 2023 amendments tied that authority to federal work authorization under specified circumstances. Current federal guidance draws a separate line between lawful international trucking and domestic employment. U.S. Customs and Border Protection states that foreign truck drivers may qualify for B-1 admission to pick up or deliver cargo moving in the stream of international commerce but may not pick up a shipment at one U.S. location and deliver it to another U.S. location (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2026). The Department of State identifies the Border Crossing Card (BCC) as both a BCC and a B1/B2 visitor visa for Mexican citizens (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). DPS must state how it applies § 522.015 to an LFC holder admitted under those federal rules.

The Legislature should require DPS to state its current interpretation in writing. If existing language creates ambiguity between lawful international trucking and prohibited domestic work, amend § 522.015 so an officer can apply the statute without guessing at roadside. Texas already provides consequences for violations of these provisions. The enforcement problem often lies in identifying the violation and connecting the roadside facts to the law that supplies the consequence.

Texas law also reaches the carrier, the freight movement, and, under Chapter 643, certain persons who assist the carrier.

Transportation Code § 643.062 prohibits a foreign-based international motor carrier covered by Chapter 643 or registered under Chapter 645 from transporting persons or cargo in intrastate commerce in Texas. Subsection (b) separately provides that “a person may not assist” a foreign-based international motor carrier in violating that prohibition (Tex. Transp. Code § 643.062). The assisting-person language makes conduct beyond the driver or carrier legally relevant when the statute applies and the evidence establishes the actor’s participation. It does not establish liability merely because a broker, dispatcher, shipper, warehouse, or other commercial participant appears somewhere in the freight transaction.

Chapter 643 also supplies state remedies. For a motor carrier required to register under Subchapter B, § 643.251 authorizes the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV) to impose an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 for a violation and up to $15,000 for a knowing violation. The aggregate penalty for multiple knowing violations may reach $30,000, and each day a violation continues or occurs may constitute a separate violation. Section 643.256 also authorizes TxDMV to issue a cease-and-desist order when necessary to prevent a Chapter 643 violation and protect public health and safety (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 643.251, 643.256).

Those remedies do not answer every question created by § 643.062(b). Section 643.251 applies to a motor carrier required to register under Subchapter B, whereas § 643.062 reaches specified foreign-based international carriers and separately prohibits a person from assisting a violation. TxDMV, DPS, and the attorney general therefore need to identify which remedies reach which carriers and assisting actors, what proof each remedy requires, and where Texas law leaves an enforcement gap.

Transportation Code Chapter 648 separately regulates foreign commercial motor vehicles. Section 648.101 creates a registration exemption for qualifying foreign commercial vehicles operating within a border commercial zone subject to statutory conditions. The exemption does not create an unrestricted right to use foreign equipment throughout Texas (Tex. Transp. Code § 648.101).

Section 648.103 states a broader foreign-carrier prohibition. A foreign motor carrier or foreign motor private carrier may not transport persons or cargo in Texas intrastate commerce unless the carrier possesses the federal or international authority required to conduct domestic operations between points in the United States (Tex. Transp. Code § 648.103).

Federal law supplies overlapping restrictions. Mexico-domiciled carriers operating under international authority may not simply enter the U.S. domestic freight market. Federal regulations address the scope of Mexico-domiciled carrier authority, operation without required authority, and operation beyond the scope of authority (49 C.F.R. § 365.501(b); 49 C.F.R. § 392.9a). Customs regulation separately governs the use of foreign equipment in local traffic (19 C.F.R. § 123.14).

Those authorities do not create one interchangeable offense called “cabotage.” The officer and prosecutor must identify the conduct, the carrier’s authority, the equipment involved, the applicable state or federal provision, and the actor responsible for the enforcement consequence.

A truck can lawfully bring international cargo from Mexico into Texas. The legal analysis changes when the international movement ends and the same equipment begins performing domestic transportation outside the carrier’s authority. Establishing that conduct may require the bill of lading, customs documentation, cargo origin and destination, electronic logging device (ELD) information, dispatch records, broker or shipper records, tractor and trailer identifiers, carrier authority, and prior movements.

Movement data can produce an investigative lead, but the data cannot substitute for a lawful stop or make a governmental enforcement decision. A sworn officer must establish the lawful basis for the encounter and independently verify the facts necessary for the action taken.

Texas already provides enforceable state consequences for some prohibited intrastate activity by foreign-based international carriers under Chapter 643. Section 648.103 states a broader foreign-carrier prohibition (Tex. Transp. Code § 648.103). The Legislature should direct TxDMV, DPS, and the attorney general to map which carriers and assisting actors fall within Chapter 643, which conduct is enforceable through §§ 643.251 and 643.256, what independent remedy applies under Chapter 648, and where a statutory enforcement gap remains (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 643.251, 643.256). That analysis should identify who may act, what authority permits the action, what evidence is required, what administrative, registration, civil, criminal, or referral consequence follows, and whether an applicable remedy reaches an assisting actor under § 643.062(b) (Tex. Transp. Code § 643.062).

The same review should address § 648.101. A border-commercial-zone registration exemption has limited enforcement value if the officer cannot readily determine whether the foreign vehicle has moved outside the statutory exemption or violated the conditions attached to it (Tex. Transp. Code § 648.101).

Carrier-network enforcement should follow the evidence beyond the driver when the facts establish a legitimate investigative nexus. Investigators may need to examine the carrier that dispatched the load, beneficial ownership, related carrier identities, Motor Carrier (MC) or Mexico-domiciled (MX) operating authority, the broker arranging the freight, the dispatcher directing the driver, the shipper tendering the cargo, and any credential or training provider connected to documented fraud. Section 643.062(b) makes the conduct of an assisting person legally relevant when its elements are satisfied. Removing one driver does not dismantle an organized commercial scheme if the same carrier can place another driver into the equipment the next day(Tex. Transp. Code § 643.062).

Texas Loses Enforcement Coverage When the Vehicle Leaves the Expected Inspection Route

DPS possesses substantial CMV enforcement authority. However, physical and jurisdictional coverage remains uneven.

Texas’s FY2025 Texas Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP) reports approximately 105 fixed CMV inspection locations away from the border, but only nine are scheduled to be staffed at least 40 hours per week. In fiscal year 2023, North American Standard-certified troopers and inspectors performed 245,541 inspections, including 80,008 at U.S.–Mexico border ports of entry. The plan also reports that 72 local agencies employing 271 inspectors performed 54,825 inspections without Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding (DPS, 2026a).

Limited continuous staffing at fixed locations matters because carriers can change routes. In material supporting its LFC petition, DPS described a roadside encounter in which a driver reported that the employer became angry after the driver used a route containing a scale house and instructed the driver to use U.S. 83 in the future because inspection was less likely there. One encounter does not establish statewide prevalence, but it documents a carrier using route selection to reduce inspection exposure (DPS, 2024).

When a carrier leaves the interstate, the vehicle remains subject to Texas law on the secondary road network. A sheriff’s deputy on that road remains a peace officer with ordinary traffic and criminal authority and separate weight-enforcement powers available under Chapter 621 (Tex. Transp. Code ch. 621). Texas law also gives peace officers CMV-specific authority outside the specialized Chapter 644 inspection system. Section 643.104 authorizes a law-enforcement officer to detain or impound a CMV operating without required liability insurance under the circumstances stated by the statute (Tex. Transp. Code § 643.104).

Chapter 522 supplies another example. Section 522.101 requires a driver with a measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the driver’s system, or a driver who refuses the applicable alcohol test, to be placed out of service for 24 hours. Section 522.103 assigns the required warning function to the peace officer requesting the specimen (Tex. Transp. Code §§ 522.101, 522.103).

Those existing powers matter because Tier I training should not be described as an observer program. Local peace officers already possess enforceable authorities. A nontechnical CMV course can teach officers how to apply those authorities correctly in the commercial-vehicle environment, distinguish them from certification-dependent Chapter 644 inspection authority, preserve evidence, and bring a certified inspector or federal partner into the case when the next action requires specialized authority.

Chapter 644 creates that specialized inspection distinction. Transportation Code § 644.103 permits a DPS officer to stop, enter, or detain a covered CMV. Certified municipal officers and certified sheriffs or deputies receive specified Chapter 644 authority within the jurisdictions stated by the statute. A certified inspector can perform the specialized inspection and impose applicable out-of-service consequences when authorized by the governing commercial-safety rules (Tex. Transp. Code § 644.103).

Texas does not make that certification equally available statewide. Section 644.101 uses population, geography, road, border, oil-and-gas, and other statutory categories to determine which local jurisdictions can participate. A truck crossing into a county outside those categories does not become less regulated, but the local sheriff’s ability to place deputies into the specialized certification system can change at the county line (Tex. Transp. Code § 644.101).

A qualification-based standard would eliminate the current geographic exclusion. A Texas sheriff, deputy sheriff, or appropriate municipal peace officer who completes the same applicable DPS, FMCSA, and Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) technical requirements could receive certification regardless of the county’s population or location.

The statute also imposes financial restraints that matter most to smaller jurisdictions. Transportation Code § 644.102 requires a municipality or county conducting Chapter 644 enforcement to pay its enforcement costs. The section also prevents local jurisdictions from being treated as grantees under the federal grant to DPS in the ordinary manner and expressly preserves their ability to receive federal High Priority Activity Funds. Subsections (d) and (e) limit the amount of Chapter 644 fine revenue a municipality or county may retain by reference to actual enforcement expenses (Tex. Transp. Code § 644.102).

Certification therefore does not ensure sustainable operational capacity. A rural sheriff’s office can face costs for training, backfill, overtime, vehicles, equipment, portable scales, field supervision, recurring certification requirements, communications, and ordinary unit operations.

Federal funding provides another route. In January 2026, FMCSA reported a fiscal year 2025 High Priority award of $1,273,842 to the City of Austin for high-visibility CMV traffic enforcement and safety inspections on five major corridors. The project includes North American Standard Levels I, II, III, and V inspections, hazardous-material enforcement, and enforcement involving domestic and foreign carriers (FMCSA, 2026a).

Texas therefore faces two distinct funding questions. DPS should explain why local agencies participating under the state’s MCSAP structure remain non-funded, and eligible local governments can pursue direct High Priority awards where federal law permits them.

A second statutory disparity also deserves review. Section 644.104 gives a certified DPS officer or employee authority to enter a motor carrier’s premises to inspect real property and equipment and to copy or verify records and reports required by Chapter 644 rules. A certified municipal officer receives narrower premises authority to inspect equipment on a per-unit or mutually agreeable basis. The statute does not give certified sheriffs and deputies the same express premises-and-records authority that DPS receives under subsection (a) (Tex. Transp. Code § 644.104).

The Legislature should require DPS to identify the reason for each disparity. The review should compare, line by line, the authority of a DPS commercial vehicle enforcement officer, a certified municipal officer, a certified sheriff or deputy, and a nontechnical Tier I officer. The comparison should address stop and detention authority, certified inspection authority, out-of-service authority, premises authority, records authority, territorial limits, state and federal information access, training costs, funding eligibility, and referral capabilities. The Legislature should preserve distinctions tied to a legal or operational requirement and remove differences that serve no necessary purpose.

Territorial authority also affects task-force operations. Section 644.103 generally ties a municipal officer’s specialized authority to the municipality and a sheriff or deputy’s authority to the county. A certified officer participating in an approved regional CMV operation can encounter a truck that crosses a county line before the inspection occurs. A defined task-force or corridor exception could permit specialized CMV authority within an approved operation through interlocal agreements, DPS standards, and statutory safeguards without giving every officer statewide authority for every purpose.

Communications present a separate operational limitation. The current Texas CVSP allocates $100,000 for 100 cellular signal boosters. DPS explains that poor cellular reception in rural parts of Texas has interfered with real-time checks of federal out-of-service information during roadside inspections and has impaired the state’s ability to identify and document carriers operating under federal out-of-service orders (DPS, 2026a).

Information access therefore requires legal permission, an authorized account, usable equipment, and enough connectivity to obtain the response where the officer encounters the truck. A statewide CMV expansion needs all four.

Separating Nontechnical Enforcement Training from Technical Inspector Certification Expands the Local Force

Texas’s current CMV program already depends heavily on local officers. The fiscal year 2025 CVSP identifies 73 non-funded local agencies and 276 certified local personnel but lists zero certified personnel under funded subrecipient agencies. The plan also reports increased municipal and county interest in CMV enforcement and states that this interest increases DPS training responsibilities. DPS maintains a full-time CMV training staff of 14 commissioned and noncommissioned personnel, 10 of whom are supported through MCSAP salaries (DPS, 2026a).

Those facts support a two-tier model that separates nontechnical enforcement knowledge from the hands-on training required for technical inspection certification.

Tier I Nontechnical CMV Enforcement Task Force Qualification

Tier I would provide a standardized, primarily online course for Texas peace officers assigned to approved CMV enforcement operations. The course would not make an officer a North American Standard inspector. It would teach commercial-vehicle law, documents, systems, officer-safety considerations, evidence preservation, and referral processes that do not require the full hands-on technical inspector school.

Congress created a Commercial Motor Vehicle Enforcement Training and Support Grant Program whose purposes include training nonfederal employees who conduct CMV enforcement activities ( 49 U.S.C. § 31102(l)(5)). That authority provides a direct foundation for expanding nontechnical CMV training.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) Task Force Model offers a useful operational comparison. ICE enrolls participating agencies, designates trained officers, defines the scope of delegated authority, establishes supervision, and connects local personnel to a federal enforcement process (ICE, n.d.-b). The legal authority differs. Section 287(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), expressly delegates specified immigration functions. MCSAP operates through federal standards, compatible state law, state enforcement authority, technical certification, grants, information systems, and program agreements. The same standardized training-and-agreement structure offers an operational model without conflating the two statutes.

Tier I training can cover each of the following areas:

• safe roadside interaction with tractors, trailers, tankers, buses, and foreign equipment;
• the difference among a Texas CDL, non-domiciled CDL, Mexican LFC, commercial learner permit, and other relevant credentials;
• the distinction between credential existence and lawful qualification;
• Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS), Clearinghouse-related status, medical qualification, endorsements, restrictions, disqualifications, and out-of-service concepts appropriate to the officer’s authorized access;
• recognition and documentation of English-language proficiency (ELP) indicators and the applicable referral process;
• U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), MC, and MX identifiers and the difference between carrier identification and operating authority;
• Chapter 643 insurance, registration, and foreign-based international-carrier provisions available to peace officers or relevant to referral;
• Chapter 648 foreign-carrier restrictions;
• bills of lading, cargo origin and destination, customs paperwork, ELD information, manifests, and dispatch records;
• indicators of unauthorized domestic transportation;
• chameleon-carrier indicators, cloned carrier identities, suspicious ownership or operating-number changes, and equipment operated under another entity’s authority;
• human smuggling, narcotics, cargo theft, stolen vehicles and trailers, illicit fuel, agricultural smuggling, livestock movement, and hazardous-material indicators;
• preservation of evidence before the truck, driver, electronic records, or cargo moves into another jurisdiction;
• proper requests to DPS, FMCSA, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), INTERPOL Washington, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), and other specialized agencies;
• constitutional limits, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, consent, searches, detentions, records, privacy, civil rights, and prohibited profiling;
• legal requirements governing biometric collection or submission; and
• the point at which the officer must obtain a Tier II inspector or another officer with specialized authority.

Tier I does not confer North American Standard inspection authority or any Chapter 644 inspection or out-of-service power that depends upon technical inspector certification. It does not diminish the traffic, criminal, weight, insurance, alcohol-related, or other CMV enforcement authority a Texas peace officer already possesses under law. Tier I also does not confer federal immigration authority not separately granted under law or unrestricted access to controlled databases.

That separation preserves the technical inspection standard and allows more Texas peace officers to use the CMV-related authority they already possess.

Tier II Full Technical CMV Inspector Certification

Tier II would preserve every hands-on standard required for a fully certified commercial-vehicle inspector. DPS’ current certification rule, 37 Texas Administrative Code § 4.13, aligns Texas certification with CVSA Operational Policy 4. Full certification requires the applicable North American Standard classroom instruction, Texas-specific instruction, testing, field work, supervised inspections, and continuing certification requirements. Specialty functions involving hazardous materials, cargo tanks, passenger vehicles, and other areas require additional training (37 Tex. Admin. Code § 4.13).

An online Tier I course cannot replace those technical requirements. The capacity problem arises when scarce technical training resources are used for introductory or nontechnical material that can be delivered another way. DPS reports increased local demand and maintains only 14 full-time training personnel. Moving appropriate introductory material online would allow those personnel to devote more time to North American Standard technical instruction, field supervision, specialty schools, certification, recertification, and other hands-on work that requires qualified instructors (DPS, 2026a).

Additional appropriations could support DPS instructors, regional technical academies, mobile training capacity, overtime and backfill for local agencies, equipment, portable scales, communications, inspection technology, and required supervised inspections.

Federal law already anticipates local participation. Section 31102 of Title 49, United States Code, describes a partnership among the Secretary of Transportation, states, local governments, and other political jurisdictions. MCSAP requires participating states to maintain legal authority and qualified personnel, exchange information, participate in appropriate federal information systems, enforce applicable registration and operating-authority requirements, and conduct visible enforcement in high-risk locations and corridors. Border-state plans also address CMVs engaged in international commerce (49 U.S.C. § 31102).

Texas does not need to invent a local CMV role. It needs to scale a role that already exists.

The current Texas CVSP contains local-inspection projections that require explanation. One summary identifies 73 non-funded agencies, 276 certified personnel, and 10,000 projected inspections by non-funded local agencies. A different narrative section projects 425,000 total roadside inspections in fiscal year 2025, including 250,000 by department personnel and 175,000 by local agencies operating under memoranda of understanding with DPS. A locked planning table elsewhere reports different projections. The same plan documents 54,825 actual local-agency inspections in fiscal year 2023 (DPS, 2026a).

The differences may reflect distinct planning periods, categories, or portions of the multiyear federal form, but the final plan does not make the distinction self-evident. DPS should reconcile the numbers for the committee and identify the current operational commitment. Local agencies already perform tens of thousands of inspections; the Legislature is deciding how to expand an existing capability, not whether local officers belong in CMV enforcement.

Information Access Has to Follow the Officer Performing the Function

Expanding certification alone will not close the roadside enforcement gap. The officer also needs the information required to perform the assigned function.

Texas already participates in multiple information systems. CDLIS exchanges commercial-driver licensing information among jurisdictions. DPS inspection software checks driver and carrier information and helps identify federal out-of-service orders. The Texas CVSP states that DPS verifies operating authority during inspections and transmits inspection and crash information through federal systems (DPS, 2026a).

The problem is not a complete absence of interstate information exchange. Different cases require different data. A foreign-credential case may require credential provenance. An unauthorized-domestic-transportation case may require cargo and movement information. A driver-integrity case may require current CDL, Clearinghouse, medical, and disqualification status. An identity-fraud case may require biometric or international information. A carrier case may require operating authority, inspection history, out-of-service status, ownership, equipment, or prior enforcement records.

The Legislature should require DPS to create a CMV enforcement access matrix. For every material information function, the matrix should identify the following information:

• the information needed;
• the state or federal system that holds it;
• the level of access available to a DPS commercial vehicle enforcement officer;
• the level available to a Tier II local inspector;
• the level available to a Tier I task-force officer;
• the legal authority controlling dissemination;
• the security or user-eligibility requirements;
• the agency responsible for sponsoring the account;
• any memorandum-of-understanding or contract restriction;
• the communications requirement necessary to reach the system at roadside; and
• the process for obtaining access when an officer becomes eligible.

That analysis would separate legal restrictions from administrative practice. A local officer cannot demand access merely because DPS has it. Some systems contain sensitive information and impose role-based restrictions, federal security requirements, investigative predicates, or Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) controls. When a local officer performs the same certified function and federal law permits equivalent functional access, however, Texas should identify why the officer lacks access and remove administrative barriers that serve no legal purpose.

Biometric interoperability provides a concrete example. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM), operates the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). In April 2025, OBIM stated that all state, local, tribal, and territorial law-enforcement agencies are eligible to receive specified IDENT ten-print and latent-print responses through approved interoperability with NGI. OBIM directs agencies to work through the state FBI CJIS Systems Officer. Texas began a latent-print interoperability pilot in 2016, and OBIM reports that the pilot produced 50 latent-print matches that assisted investigations involving homicide, sexual assault, robbery, fraud, arson, drug offenses, and organized criminal activity (OBIM, 2025).

That federal policy creates a concrete Texas oversight question. How many Texas law-enforcement agencies can currently receive those responses, which Operation Lone Star Task Force (OLS-TF) and CMV task-force agencies participate, and what prevents other eligible agencies from doing so?

Database access does not authorize indiscriminate fingerprinting. Authority to access a database and authority to collect or submit a person’s biometric information are legally distinct. Tier I training should teach both. An officer needs a lawful basis for collection and an authorized purpose for the query. A statewide program also needs rules governing retention, dissemination, auditing, privacy, and civil-rights compliance.

The Department of War Automated Biometric Identification System (DoW ABIS) requires the same precision. The Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency operates DoD ABIS and coordinates biometric data sharing with U.S. government agencies and foreign partners (U.S. Army, n.d.). Texas does not need direct DoW ABIS accounts in every sheriff’s office. Federal partners can identify which approved NGI or IDENT transactions reach interoperable biometric holdings and what information may lawfully return to state and local officers.

International information also needs a defined path. INTERPOL Washington provides criminal investigative support and coordination to U.S. federal, state, local, and tribal law-enforcement agencies. Its services include foreign criminal-history checks, secure communications with foreign police, fugitive and missing-person assistance, international fingerprint and DNA checks, and other international investigative support (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.).

In one task-force matter in which I participated, the domestic information available to participating officers did not resolve the foreign identity or international issue. We ultimately had to contact INTERPOL. A statewide CMV task-force protocol should not make that step dependent on an individual officer knowing whom to call. Officers dealing with an international case need to know how to route the request, what information the foreign inquiry requires, how to transmit it, and how to preserve evidence while awaiting a response.

The information-access plan must also account for the connectivity problem that DPS has documented. A federal account has little value on a rural road if the officer cannot reach the system. Mobile connectivity, signal amplification, secure terminals, and reliable data service belong in the same appropriation as training and inspection equipment (DPS, 2026a).

Provider Integrity, English Proficiency, and Associated Documents

The committee’s third-party testing charge requires separate analysis of skills testing, knowledge testing, and Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT).

Third-party skills testing already operates under detailed federal integrity requirements. Section 384.229 requires Texas to conduct unannounced on-site inspections of third-party skills testers and examiner records at least once every two years, monitor examinations through covert or overt methods, maintain examiner-level pass/fail information capable of identifying anomalous results, and maintain records supporting state oversight (49 C.F.R. § 384.229).

Section 383.75 requires third-party agreements to permit unannounced examinations, inspections, and audits. Federal rules permit integrity techniques that include a government employee posing as an applicant, co-scoring an examination, or retesting drivers previously examined by a third party. The rules also require remedial action when a provider or examiner violates the governing standards (49 C.F.R. § 383.75).

Texas therefore does not need new authority merely to conduct an unannounced third-party skills-testing audit. The committee needs to determine how DPS has used the authority it already possesses.

DPS reports that, as of August 2025, Texas had 187 authorized third-party skills-testing providers and nine mobile CDL testing teams (DPS, n.d.-b). DPS should report the following information for each of the last three years.

• the number of unannounced provider inspections;
• covert test applicants;
• co-scored examinations;
• retests ordered;
• examiner pass/fail anomalies;
• examiners suspended or decertified;
• providers suspended or terminated;
• criminal referrals;
• credentials reviewed after a provider-integrity finding;
• bonds used to pay for retesting; and
• investigations involving common ownership, shared addresses, recruiters, carriers, vehicles, payment sources, or other relationships that produced a legitimate fraud indicator.

A shared business relationship cannot by itself establish wrongdoing. Such relationships may serve as risk indicators when abnormal results or other evidence creates a legitimate investigative basis.

Third-party knowledge testing occupies a different regulatory position. Federal rules do not impose the same mandatory oversight structure that §§ 383.75 and 384.229 impose on third-party skills testing (49 C.F.R. § 383.75; 49 C.F.R. § 384.229). Texas law or DPS rules may apply comparable integrity controls, including unannounced review, covert integrity testing, secure records, examiner analytics, conflict controls, and immediate suspension when continued activity presents a documented public-safety risk.

ELDT creates a third problem. On July 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that FMCSA had identified approximately 75 ELDT schools suspected of fraudulent activity, including improper certifications, falsified training records, and failures to provide required instruction. HSI joined the federal investigation (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2026a).

That enforcement action creates a lookback question for Texas. If FMCSA, HSI, DPS, or another competent agency substantiates fraud by a training provider, DPS needs the ability to identify every Texas credential associated with that provider. Provider misconduct does not automatically establish fraud by every former student, but Texas cannot sanction the provider and ignore credentials that credible evidence indicates may have been obtained without required training.

Federal law already supplies a mechanism when credible information indicates fraud related to CDL issuance. Section 383.73 requires the state to order retesting when credible information indicates that a CDL or CLP holder is suspected of issuance-related fraud and prescribes consequences when the driver fails to schedule, appear for, or pass the required testing (49 C.F.R. § 383.73). A Texas provider-linked lookback process could operate through that existing federal obligation.

English proficiency belongs in the same credential-integrity analysis. Federal law requires covered CMV drivers to possess sufficient English proficiency to communicate in response to official inquiries and understand English-language highway traffic signs and signals (49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2)). FMCSA’s revised April 16, 2026, roadside policy directs FMCSA enforcement personnel on the current inspection procedure and out-of-service treatment (FMCSA, 2026c).

The policy contains an operational distinction that matters especially in Texas. When the driver’s current trip would not involve, and has not involved, transportation in the United States outside a U.S.–Mexico border commercial zone, an FMCSA enforcement inspector who finds an ELP violation cites the driver under § 391.11(b)(2) but does not place the driver out of service under that policy. When the current trip has involved or will involve transportation in the United States outside a border commercial zone, the FMCSA enforcement inspector cites the violation and places the driver out of service. FMCSA directs inspectors to determine the scope of the current trip from bills of lading, dispatch records, equipment-interchange receipts, driver statements, or other related shipping documents (FMCSA, 2026c).

That distinction makes cargo and route documentation relevant to an ELP encounter. A roadside officer may need the bill of lading, dispatch information, origin, destination, and route to determine whether the current trip remains within the border commercial zone. Tier I should therefore teach recognition and documentation of ELP indicators and the applicable referral process. An online Tier I course does not make every deputy the certified inspector who conducts the formal North American Standard assessment and applies certification-dependent out-of-service consequences.

Effective June 1, 2026, DPS began administering all Texas CDL and CLP knowledge examinations in English only. DPS also prohibited interpreters for those knowledge examinations (DPS, 2026b).

Transportation Code § 522.043 still contains language concerning English proficiency and examination that does not mirror current federal requirements and DPS practice. Revising the provision would remove ambiguity without converting accent, nationality, or immigration status into an ELP test.

The driver must personally demonstrate the qualification. During the formal driver interview, FMCSA instructs its enforcement personnel not to use communication tools such as interpreters, cue cards, smartphone applications, or telephone interpretation services because those tools can mask whether the driver can respond to official inquiries in English (FMCSA, 2026c). At the same time, an accent is not a violation, possession of a Mexican LFC is not a violation, and a failed ELP assessment does not by itself establish unlawful immigration status. Training and statute should preserve those distinctions.

Medical certification presents another associated-document issue. Texas’s transition to electronic medical certification means that a roadside officer increasingly relies on an electronic record, but the officer cannot treat every paper MEC as obsolete. FMCSA’s current nationwide NRII exemption runs from April 11 through October 11, 2026. During that period, qualifying interstate CDL and CLP holders and motor carriers may rely on a paper copy of a current, valid MEC for up to 60 days after issuance. The exemption does not waive the underlying physical-qualification requirement (FMCSA, 2026b).

Tier I training should therefore cover the current electronic process, the temporary paper exception, and data-lag issues that can produce a mismatch between a paper MEC and the electronic record. Clearinghouse status presents the same basic roadside problem. A physical CDL can appear current after the underlying commercial privilege has been downgraded. The roadside protocol must verify current legal status rather than rely solely on the face of the credential (FMCSA, 2024; DPS, n.d.-a).

A Sustained Texas Operation Can Connect Authorities That Already Exist

Operation Highway Shield demonstrates the value of placing officers with different legal authorities in the same operation. During its second wave, conducted July 28 through July 30, 2026, FMCSA, ICE, HSI, and participating state highway patrols conducted coordinated roadside operations in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio. The U.S. Department of Transportation reported 51 immigration detentions, 766 driver or vehicle out-of-service actions, 86 arrests for dangerous behavior, 36 ELP violations, and nearly $1 million in recovered stolen cargo (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2026b).

The operation distributed authority among participating personnel rather than relying on one officer to exercise every power. CMV inspectors exercised commercial-vehicle authority, immigration officers exercised immigration authority, state officers exercised state criminal and traffic authority, and investigators acted on offenses within their jurisdictions (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2026b).

Texas already has many of the components for a sustained version. Under that model, DPS would provide the state CMV lead, certified sheriffs and municipal officers would expand the inspection footprint, and Tier I-trained officers would exercise existing peace-officer authority, recognize CMV-specific indicators, preserve evidence, and make referrals. Properly designated 287(g) personnel would exercise the immigration functions granted under their specific Task Force Model agreements. HSI investigates transnational criminal activity, including human smuggling, customs fraud, and immigration-document or benefit fraud, and ERO performs immigration-enforcement functions within its legal authorities (ICE, n.d.-a). CBP and FMCSA would address matters within their respective federal authorities.

Those authorities remain distinct. Chapter 644 certification does not create immigration authority. A 287(g) designation does not create North American Standard inspection authority. Tier I training creates neither. The operational model works by placing differently authorized personnel together and directing evidence to the actor who can lawfully use it.

Visa-related consequences require the same precision. HSI can investigate and assemble an evidentiary package, but HSI does not exercise the Department of State’s visa-revocation authority. Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i), and 22 C.F.R. § 41.122 govern Department of State revocation authority. CBP has separate authorities governing inspection and admission, and ERO has separate custody and removal functions (22 C.F.R. § 41.122).

Federal partners should produce one written roadside protocol stating what evidence each agency needs, which official takes the final action, what can occur while the driver remains lawfully detained, what information enters federal systems for future encounters, and what disposition can be returned to the originating Texas agency. A written protocol would reduce report-and-release failures without treating state officers as if they possess federal powers they do not have.

Agricultural enforcement provides a closely analogous Texas example. Agriculture Code § 161.048 gives TAHC inspection authority over qualifying animal movements, and § 161.139 makes it an offense to refuse an authorized inspection or fail to stop a vehicle carrying animals or animal products when a TAHC agent signals or requests the stop (Tex. Agric. Code §§ 161.048, 161.139).

TAHC nevertheless told the Legislature that drivers had failed to stop at high-volume inspection locations, leaving the agency unable to perform inspections. TAHC requested approximately $130,000 to place DPS, county, or local law-enforcement officers at targeted locations to assist in stopping those vehicles (TAHC, 2022). The example shows how a regulator can possess inspection authority yet still depend on a peace officer to obtain compliance when a driver refuses to stop.

A sustained Texas CMV operation can include TAHC when livestock movement is involved, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service when agricultural smuggling or biosecurity is implicated, the Texas Department of Agriculture when the facts fall within its statutory responsibilities, and CBP agriculture personnel when an investigation involves importation or a port-of-entry nexus.

Commercial trucking also appears in transnational organized-crime investigations outside Texas. In Project Pelican, Peel Regional Police reported that investigators identified trucking companies and storage sites linked to a cocaine-smuggling operation using U.S.–Canada commercial trucking routes. Canadian authorities later intercepted commercial trucks carrying cocaine at two border crossings (Peel Regional Police, 2025). The case supports the narrower proposition that organized criminal networks can use commercial trucking companies and cross-border freight routes to move illicit goods.

A roadside officer does not need expertise in every crime that may involve a commercial vehicle. The officer needs enough training to recognize when the encounter implicates another agency’s authority, enough information to preserve the relevant evidence, and enough connectivity to reach the agency responsible for the next action.

Legislative Actions

The evidence supports six principal Texas actions.

Action One: Expand and Equalize Local CMV Enforcement Under Chapter 644

Amend § 644.101 so eligibility for technical CMV certification turns on the officer’s training and certification rather than current population and geographic categories.

Review § 644.102’s local cost structure, including certification expense, local funding restrictions, and the relationship between MCSAP and direct High Priority grants. Appropriate state funds for training, backfill, equipment, communications, and recurring certification costs, and preserve direct local access to federal High Priority funds.

Amend § 644.103 to create a defined regional or task-force provision that permits a fully certified local inspector assigned to an approved operation to exercise specialized CMV authority within the designated operation, subject to DPS standards and interlocal or state agreements.

Require a statutory comparison of DPS and local certified powers under §§ 644.103 and 644.104. Preserve distinctions tied to a specific governmental need and eliminate disparities that unnecessarily prevent equally certified local personnel from performing the assigned task.

Action Two: Create Tier I Online Training and Expand Tier II Technical Capacity

Direct DPS to establish the nontechnical CMV Enforcement Task Force qualification using existing federal CMV-awareness materials and Texas-specific law. Define Tier I around existing peace-officer authority, commercial-vehicle law, records, recognition and referral of ELP indicators, evidence preservation, information access, and partner referral. Reserve North American Standard and Chapter 644 inspection functions that depend on technical certification for Tier II personnel.

Petition FMCSA under 49 C.F.R. § 389.31 for a national rule or policy establishing a standardized nontechnical CMV enforcement course for state and local officers, and request an administrative pilot under existing FMCSA program authority (49 C.F.R. § 389.31).

Use the federal training authority in 49 U.S.C. § 31102(l)(5) to pursue available resources for training nonfederal CMV enforcement personnel.

Appropriate funds for additional DPS technical instructors, regional academies, supervised inspections, overtime, backfill, equipment, portable scales, communications, and certification maintenance. Use the current 14-person DPS training staff as the baseline for measuring increased technical training capacity and the amount of instructor time shifted from nontechnical instruction to hands-on certification work (DPS, 2026a).

Action Three: Give Trained Officers the Information and Connectivity Required for the Function

Require DPS to produce the CMV enforcement access matrix described above.

Direct DPS to facilitate authorized local access when state or federal law permits it and require a written legal basis for each difference in access among DPS, Tier II local inspectors, and Tier I task-force officers.

Expand eligible Texas participation in IDENT and NGI interoperability, formalize INTERPOL procedures, preserve CDLIS and FMCSA access appropriate to the officer’s function, and provide the communications capability required to use those systems on rural roads.

Treat rural connectivity as an enforcement requirement. DPS has already budgeted for signal boosters because poor cellular coverage impairs federal out-of-service checks (DPS, 2026a).

Action Four: Complete the Credential-Integrity Chain

Require DPS to provide the committee with the complete results of the Texas non-domiciled CDL corrective review and identify each control implemented after FMCSA’s substantial-noncompliance determination.

Audit DPS’ use of existing third-party skills-testing oversight under 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.75 and 384.229 rather than create duplicate authority.

Apply comparable integrity controls to third-party knowledge testing where federal law does not impose the same mandatory oversight structure.

Direct DPS to establish a provider-linked lookback process for ELDT and testing fraud using the retesting mechanism already required under § 383.73 when credible information indicates issuance-related fraud.

Reconcile Transportation Code § 522.043 with current federal ELP requirements and DPS practice.

Require the statewide roadside protocol to address current Clearinghouse status, medical certification, the April 11–October 11, 2026, paper-MEC exemption, CDLIS information, credential restrictions, and other associated records that determine whether an apparently current CDL remains legally usable.

Action Five: Make Foreign-Credential and Unauthorized-Domestic-Transport Enforcement Legally Explicit

Require DPS to document exactly what information an officer receives when querying a Mexican LFC.

Clarify § 522.015 where necessary to distinguish legitimate B-1/BCC international trucking from prohibited domestic employment and preserve the consequences that current Chapter 522 law already provides.

Direct TxDMV, DPS, and the attorney general to identify the enforcement mechanisms and remedies available under Chapters 643 and 648. The analysis should identify which foreign-based international carriers fall within § 643.062, when § 643.062(b) reaches an assisting person, which conduct is enforceable through §§ 643.251 and 643.256, what independent remedy applies to §§ 648.101 and 648.103, which officer or agency may act, and where a statutory enforcement gap remains.

Add a state remedy only where that legal mapping establishes that current law does not provide an adequate consequence for prohibited conduct.

Petition FMCSA to act on DPS’ December 17, 2024, LFC petition and conduct a renewed integrity review of Mexico’s current digital credential system using FMCSA’s prior Mexican review as precedent.

Establish a common evidentiary standard for unauthorized domestic transportation that distinguishes Chapter 643 and Chapter 648 violations, FMCSA operating-authority violations, customs restrictions, and immigration consequences rather than collapsing them into a generic cabotage label.

Action Six: Establish a Sustained Highway Shield–OLS Commercial-Vehicle Operation

Establish a standing corridor capability that combines DPS commercial vehicle enforcement, certified local inspectors, Tier I officers, appropriately designated 287(g) personnel, HSI, ERO, CBP, FMCSA, prosecutors, and investigators and preserves each participant’s separate legal authority.

Include TAHC, USDA agricultural personnel, the Texas Department of Agriculture, CBP agriculture personnel, and other agencies when the cargo or investigation falls within their statutory responsibilities.

Direct operations toward interstate corridors and bypass routes identified through enforcement records and analysis, including farm-to-market roads, county roads, warehouse corridors, aggregate routes, construction corridors, and other roads used to reduce exposure to predictable inspection locations.

Use technology to identify movement patterns and generate investigative leads, and reserve the governmental decision to stop, inspect, detain, cite, arrest, or refer to authorized sworn officers.

Require participating agencies to return final dispositions to the originating task force to the extent permitted by law so Texas can measure which referrals produce enforcement outcomes and identify where the process fails.

Questions Requiring Direct Answers from DPS and Federal Partners

The committee can obtain much of the information necessary for legislation by requiring specific responses.

1. Texas non-domiciled credentials. How many active Texas non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs were reviewed after FMCSA’s substantial-noncompliance determination? How many were compliant, defective, downgraded, revoked, corrected, reissued, or allowed to expire?
2. Foreign LFC verification. What information does a Texas officer actually receive from a Mexican LFC query? Can DPS verify the photograph, identity, domicile, testing history, medical qualification, issuing office, examiner, restrictions, suspension history, and amendments to the credential?
3. Section 522.015. How does DPS distinguish lawful B-1/BCC international trucking from domestic work prohibited by Texas or federal law when applying § 522.015?
4. Chapters 643 and 648. Which foreign-based international carriers fall within § 643.062, and what conduct constitutes assistance under § 643.062(b)? Which remedies under §§ 643.251 and 643.256 apply to the carrier or an assisting actor? Which Texas officer or agency enforces §§ 648.101 and 648.103, what procedural authority supports the stop or detention, and what independent state consequence follows a verified Chapter 648 violation?
5. Chapter 644 eligibility. Which Texas counties and municipalities remain outside the current § 644.101 certification categories solely because of population or geography?
6. Chapter 644 costs. What does an average local agency spend to train, certify, equip, backfill, and maintain one certified CMV inspector under §§ 644.101 and 644.102?
7. DPS versus local powers. What specialized authority does a DPS commercial vehicle enforcement officer possess under §§ 644.103 and 644.104 that a comparably certified sheriff’s deputy or municipal officer lacks? What legal or operational reason supports each difference?
8. Training capacity. With 14 full-time training personnel and increasing local demand, how many additional Tier II officers can DPS certify annually? How much instructor time now goes to material that can be delivered online?
9. Local inspection numbers. Why does the final fiscal year 2025 CVSP identify 10,000 projected inspections by non-funded local agencies in one table although another narrative section projects 175,000 local inspections? Which figure represents current planned operations?
10. Fixed inspection coverage. Of approximately 105 non-border fixed inspection locations, why are only nine scheduled for at least 40 hours of staffing per week? What routes experience measurable displacement when those sites operate?
11. Rural roads. How does Texas identify and cover farm-to-market roads, county roads, and other secondary freight routes used to avoid fixed enforcement?
12. Connectivity. Where does poor cellular coverage currently prevent reliable real-time out-of-service, operating-authority, driver, or other CMV queries? How many additional boosters, terminals, or alternative communications systems would statewide local expansion require?
13. Federal and DPS systems. For every CMV information function available to DPS but unavailable to a certified local officer, what statute, regulation, security policy, memorandum of understanding, state rule, or administrative decision creates the difference?
14. IDENT. How many Texas law-enforcement agencies currently receive IDENT ten-print or latent-print responses through the state’s CJIS infrastructure? What prevents expansion to every eligible OLS or CMV task-force agency?
15. Third-party testing. Of the 187 authorized third-party CDL skills-testing providers reported as of August 2025, how many received an unannounced inspection, covert test, co-scored examination, or retest audit during each of the last three years?
16. Provider enforcement. How many third-party providers or examiners were suspended, terminated, decertified, referred for criminal investigation, or required to finance retesting because of integrity findings?
17. ELDT lookback. Can DPS identify every Texas CDL linked to a provider later implicated in substantiated training fraud? What process triggers the retest requirement under 49 C.F.R. § 383.73?
18. Clearinghouse and medical status. What information is available to a roadside Texas officer when a driver’s commercial privilege has been downgraded for Clearinghouse or medical reasons even though the physical credential appears current? How does the roadside process account for FMCSA’s April 11–October 11, 2026, exemption permitting qualifying interstate drivers and motor carriers to rely on a paper MEC for up to 60 days after issuance?
19. FMCSA petition. What is FMCSA’s disposition of the December 17, 2024, Texas LFC petition? Has FMCSA conducted a current review of the Mexican digital LFC system comparable to its prior review of Mexican testing facilities?
20. Federal consequence process. When a Texas officer establishes evidence of unauthorized domestic transportation, visa misuse, fraudulent credentials, unlawful employment, identity fraud, or carrier operating-authority violations, which federal actor receives the evidence, what legal threshold applies, and what action can occur while the driver remains lawfully detained?
21. Outcome feedback. Which agencies currently return final dispositions to the Texas officer or task force that originated the referral? Where no mechanism exists, what legal or administrative barrier prevents it?
22. Funding. Why does Texas report hundreds of local certified officers although it lists no certified personnel under funded MCSAP subrecipient agencies? Which Texas agencies can use the City of Austin’s fiscal year 2025 High Priority award as a model for direct federal corridor-enforcement applications?

Conclusion

Texas has already enacted or adopted many of the laws and systems needed to protect commercial transportation. The remaining enforcement problems arise when the officer who encounters the vehicle cannot connect an observed fact to the authority, information, or consequence needed to complete the action.

DPS has documented both sides of that problem. Its LFC petition described a driver who reported being directed toward a route with less inspection exposure, and its CVSP reports approximately 105 fixed non-border inspection locations but only nine scheduled for at least 40 hours of staffing per week (DPS, 2024; DPS, 2026a). When a truck moves onto a secondary road, a local deputy can retain criminal, traffic, weight, insurance, alcohol-related, and other state authority but lacks the certification-dependent Chapter 644 authority required for a full North American Standard inspection.

The same mismatch exists within the inspection system. Texas limits local technical certification through statutory geographic categories, requires counties and municipalities to bear substantial enforcement costs, and gives DPS broader express premises-and-records authority under § 644.104 than the statute gives equally certified local personnel. Local agencies nevertheless perform tens of thousands of inspections without MCSAP funding, and DPS operates with a full-time CMV training staff of 14 (DPS, 2026a).

Information access creates a separate constraint. DPS has budgeted $100,000 for cellular signal boosters because poor rural connectivity interferes with real-time federal out-of-service checks (DPS, 2026a). A physical CDL can also appear current after a Clearinghouse downgrade or while a medical record is changing, and FMCSA’s current NRII exemption means that a qualifying paper MEC can remain valid evidence for up to 60 days after issuance during the April 11–October 11, 2026, transition period (FMCSA, 2024; FMCSA, 2026b).

Foreign-carrier enforcement requires the same precision. Chapter 643 already prohibits specified foreign-based international carriers from transporting persons or cargo in Texas intrastate commerce and separately prohibits a person from assisting such a violation. The chapter also provides administrative and cease-and-desist remedies for specified conduct. Chapter 648 states a broader foreign-carrier prohibition. Effective enforcement depends on determining which statute applies, which actor committed the prohibited conduct, what evidence establishes the violation, which official has authority to act, and what consequence follows.

TAHC has documented a parallel operational problem. The agency possesses authority to inspect qualifying livestock movements but reported that drivers had failed to stop at high-volume inspection points, leaving the agency unable to complete inspections without law-enforcement assistance (TAHC, 2022).

The common issue is not a complete absence of governmental authority. Enforcement fails when the officer who encounters the vehicle lacks one element required to complete the lawful action, whether that element is training, certification, territorial authority, statutory power, information, connectivity, funding, or a direct path to the agency responsible for the next consequence.

Closing those gaps does not require lowering technical inspection standards. The recommended approach places nontechnical CMV knowledge in the hands of more peace officers, reserves North American Standard inspection training for Tier II personnel, makes technical certification available statewide based on qualification rather than geography, funds local agencies operating on diversion routes, aligns lawful information access and communications capability with the function an officer performs, and makes Chapter 522, Chapter 643, Chapter 648, foreign-credential, third-party testing, Clearinghouse, medical, and provider-fraud procedures explicit enough for roadside application.

A sustained Highway Shield–OLS operation would then place DPS, local law enforcement, FMCSA, HSI, ERO, CBP, properly designated 287(g) personnel, INTERPOL, USDA, TAHC, the Texas Department of Agriculture, and other partners into the same operational picture while preserving each actor’s separate legal authority.

DPS has already documented a driver reporting that an employer directed the truck toward a route with less inspection exposure. Texas’s commercial-vehicle enforcement system should not lose effectiveness merely because a truck leaves the road where DPS expected to find it (DPS, 2024).

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.

References

19 C.F.R. § 123.14 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-123/section-123.14

22 C.F.R. § 41.122 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-41/subpart-L/section-41.122

37 Tex. Admin. Code § 4.13 (2025). https://www.sos.texas.gov/texreg/archive/October242025/Adopted%20Rules/37.PUBLIC%20SAFETY%20AND%20CORRECTIONS.html

49 C.F.R. § 365.501 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-365/subpart-E/section-365.501

49 C.F.R. § 383.73 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-383/subpart-E/section-383.73

49 C.F.R. § 383.75 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-383/subpart-E/section-383.75

49 C.F.R. § 384.229 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-384/subpart-B/section-384.229

49 C.F.R. § 389.31 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-389/subpart-B/section-389.31

49 C.F.R. § 391.11 (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-391/subpart-B/section-391.11

49 C.F.R. § 392.9a (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-392/subpart-A/section-392.9a

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Biometric Identity Management. (2025, April). DHS biometric data sharing with state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement [Information paper]. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_obim_data-sharing-sltt-law-enforcement.pdf

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2024, November 18). Clearinghouse II and CDL downgrades: State compliance begins today. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://clearinghouse.fmcsa.dot.gov/Learn/News/Item/Clearinghouse-II-begins

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2025, October 23). Preliminary determination of substantial noncompliance [Letter to Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Department of Public Safety Director Freeman F. Martin]. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://downloads.regulations.gov/FMCSA-2025-0622-4010/attachment_1.pdf

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2026a, January 22). High Priority Grant Program: Fiscal year 2025 recipients and project summaries. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/downloadfile.axd/2026-01-22_Final-FY25-HP-Selection-Project-Summaries.pdf

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2026b, April 10). FMCSA issues temporary exemption to support NRII transition. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/fmcsa-issues-temporary-exemption-support-nrii-transition

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2026c, April 16). English language proficiency under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2) (MC-SEE-2026-0002) [Internal agency enforcement policy]. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2026-04/FMCSA%20ELP%20Guidance%20Roadside%20Policy%20-%20Revised%20%284-16-2026%29_Redacted.pdf

HB 4337. Enrolled. 88th Texas Legislature. Regular. (2023). https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB04337F.pdf

Peel Regional Police. (2025, June 10). Project Pelican: Peel Police’s record drug bust dismantles transnational criminal network. https://www.peelpolice.ca/news-feed/posts/project-pelican-peel-police-s-record-drug-bust-dismantles-transnational-criminal-network/

Pilot Project on NAFTA Trucking Provisions; Commercial Driver’s License Memorandum of Understanding With the Government of Mexico, 76 Fed. Reg. 63,344 (October 12, 2011). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-10-12/pdf/2011-26442.pdf

Tex. Agric. Code § 161.048 and § 161.139. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/AG/htm/AG.161.htm

Tex. Transp. Code § 522.003.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.522.htm#522.003

Tex. Transp. Code § 522.011.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.522.htm#522.011

Tex. Transp. Code § 522.015.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.522.htm#522.015

Tex. Transp. Code § 522.043.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.522.htm#522.043

Tex. Transp. Code § 643.104.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.643.htm#643.104

Tex. Transp. Code §§ 644.101–.104.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.644.htm

Tex. Transp. Code §§ 648.101, 648.103.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.648.htm

Texas Animal Health Commission. (2022, August 5). Legislative appropriations request for fiscal years 2024–2025. https://web.tahc.texas.gov/agency/pdf/TAHC_LAR_2024-2025.pdf

Texas Department of Public Safety. (n.d.-a). Commercial driver license (CDL) medical certification requirement. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/commercial-driver-license-cdl-medical-certification-requirement

Texas Department of Public Safety. (n.d.-b). Driver License Division: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/faq/driver-license-division-frequently-asked-questions

Texas Department of Public Safety. (2024, December 17). Petition for rulemaking concerning reciprocal recognition of Mexican and Canadian commercial driver’s licenses [Petition to amend 49 C.F.R. § 383.23]. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0054, Comment FMCSA-2021-0054-0088. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2021-0054-0088

Texas Department of Public Safety. (2026a). FY2025 Texas commercial vehicle safety plan. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2026-03/FY%2025%20Texas%20CVSP%20-%20Final.pdf

Texas Department of Public Safety. (2026b, June 1). DPS announces changes to CDL knowledge testing. https://www.dps.texas.gov/news/dps-announces-changes-cdl-knowledge-testing

Texas Department of Public Safety. (2026c, June 1). DPS announces resumption of non-domiciled CDL issuances for H-2A workers. https://www.dps.texas.gov/news/dps-announces-resumption-non-domiciled-cdl-issuances-h-2a-workers

Texas Senate Committee on Transportation. (2026). Strengthening commercial driver license standards and oversight [Interim charge]. https://www.senate.texas.gov/cmte.php?c=640

U.S. Army, Office of the Provost Marshal General. (n.d.). Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.army.mil/OPMG

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2026, June 24). Amendment: San Diego Field Office cabotage reference TIN #68494490 [Trade information notice, TIN #69047582]. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/41d951e

U.S. Department of Justice, INTERPOL Washington. (n.d.). Services for law enforcement agencies. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.justice.gov/archives/interpol-washington/services-law-enforcement-agencies

U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Border crossing card. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/border-crossing-card.html

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2026a, July 16). Trump’s Departments of Transportation & Homeland Security team up to crack down on fraud in CDL schools [Press release]. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-departments-transportation-homeland-security-team-crack-down-fraud-cdl-schools

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2026b, August 4). Operation Highway Shield: Trump’s Departments of Transportation & Homeland Security sweep 800 dangerous truckers, illegals off U.S. roads [Press release]. https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/operation-highway-shield-trumps-departments-transportation-homeland-security-sweep

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.-a). ICE’s mission. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.ice.gov/mission

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.-b). Partner with ICE through the 287(g) program. Retrieved August 25, 2026, from https://www.ice.gov/287g