Representative Ted Gorski urges English‑only CDL knowledge test, citing safety concerns

Representative Ted Gorski (Bedford District 2) introduced House Bill 12‑52, which would require the Department of Safety to administer the commercial driver knowledge test only in English and prohibit translators during the test, with a carve‑out for American Sign Language. "This bill as amended would make it that the knowledge test would only be conducted in English," Gorski told the Transportation Committee.

Supporters framed the change as a safety measure. Joe Scully, president of the New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, cited federal rules and argued state policy should align with them. "49 CFR 391.11(b)(2…says that truck drivers need to be able to read English. They need to be able to speak English," Scully said, adding that inability to read signs or answer basic enforcement questions can pose safety risks.

Industry and private witnesses described incidents they say illustrate the concern. Holly Noblitzky, who owns Novel Ironworks and employs CDL drivers, said drivers who could not read English signage had caused property damage and safety hazards at her facility. "They don't know where they are. They can't read my signs," Noblitzky told the committee.

DMV Director John Marasco said the department currently complies with federal law and offers the knowledge test in multiple languages under existing federal allowances. Marasco said the skills portions of CDL testing — the pretrip, basic control and road test — already must be conducted in English. "We're in full compliance with federal law," he said.

Ashley Gray, DMV administrator, told the committee the agency's records show about 120 people passed the knowledge test in a non‑English language in the last five years and 32 people attempted it in the last 12 months (11 passed). Gray described an administrative plan the DMV would use if the bill became law: notifying affected drivers and requiring them to retake the knowledge test in English within 90 days, while noting that the hearings bureau currently lacks clear procedures for handling large numbers of retroactive hearings.

Committee members pressed sponsors and DMV staff on operational and legal questions, including whether federal law preempts state action and how cross‑border law enforcement partners would be handled. Marasco said the DMV would research federal preemption and consult law enforcement partners about potential impacts.

The committee closed the public portion of the hearing and said it would hold the bill for the chair's return to allow sponsors and staff to work on the draft; no committee vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt.

The bill's next steps were to be determined by the committee and sponsors.