WRONG. The legislation simply states FMCSA can begin ALLOWING hair testing as an acceptanle ALTERNATIVE to urine, but not until US H&HS established federal guidelines for hair tasting. There is no mandate or requirement hair testing be used, not any legislation mandating it for FMCSA-regulated drivers.
Drug testing
Discussion in 'Questions From New Drivers' started by Rev78, Jan 21, 2024.
Page 8 of 9
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
-
-
SEC. 5402. DRUG-FREE COMMERCIAL DRIVERS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31306 of title 49, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (b)(1)— (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘The regulations shall permit such motor carriers to conduct preemployment testing of such employees for the use of alcohol.’’; and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: ‘‘(B) The regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall permit motor carriers— ‘‘(i) to conduct preemployment testing of commercial motor vehicle operators for the use of alcohol; and ‘‘(ii) to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing— ‘‘(I) in conducting preemployment testing for the use of a controlled substance; and ‘‘(II) in conducting random testing for the use of a controlled substance if the operator was subject to hair testing for preemployment testing.’’; (2) in subsection (b)(2)— (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and (C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(C) shall provide an exemption from hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators with established religious beliefs that prohibit the cutting or removal of hair.’’; and (3) in subsection (c)(2)— 49 USC 31311 note. 49 USC 31301 note. VerDate Mar 15 2010 06:40 Feb 24, 2016 Jkt 059139 PO 00094 Frm 00237 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL094.114 PUBL094 ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW 129 STAT. 1548 PUBLIC LAW 114–94—DEC. 4, 2015 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘for urine testing, and technical guidelines for hair testing,’’ before ‘‘including mandatory guidelines’’; (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (C) in subparagraph (C) by inserting ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and (D) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(D) laboratory protocols and cut-off levels for hair testing to detect the use of a controlled substance;’’. (b) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue scientific and technical guidelines for hair testing as a method of detecting the use of a controlled substance for purposes of section 31306 of title 49, United States Code.
I attempt to be as accurate as possible when I state something. I NEVER said Motor Carriers are mandated to use hair testing. I said and will admit my meaning is not as clear as it should be it is the FMCSA that is under the mandate to allow it, ONCE the problems get worked out and Health and Human Services approves the process. One more point, in what I made bold after the first (A) you see the word SHALL!
shall
verb
shəl, ˈshal
past should shəd, ˈshu̇d ; present singular and plural shall
Synonyms of shall
auxiliary verb
1
a
—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future
we shall have to be ready
we shall see
b
—used to express simple futurity
when shall we expect you
2
—used to express determination
they shall not pass
3
a
—used to express a command or exhortation
you shall go
b
—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory
it shall be unlawful to carry firearms
4
archaic
a
: will have to : MUST
b
: will be able to : CANCrude Truckin' Thanks this. -
-
I would also like to add something very critical to this hair testing issue. While I am retired and no longer driving, the current situation with hair testing is 100% unsatisfactory. There are no standards of what constitutes a positive. Lab A in California might consider a THC positive to be 20 ng/mL and another in New York might say 60 ng/mL is a positive. Also, there are no built-in safeguards to keep things uniform. Lab A might use one process and the other lab something different. Also, there are no standards when it comes to having a Medical Officer review the lab findings. Not saying no Medical Officers are reviewing them, but there are currently NO standards. Official FMCSA MRO's are not supposed to be mixing these things up, at least not right now.
IF the day finally comes that Section 5402 of the FAST Act becomes law and the proper guidelines are there all of this will change if the motor carrier wants to use hair testing instead of urine to satisfy the drug testing rules. There are a lot of nightmares currently with people being sent home for positives and later determined to not have used. I want to see this entire hair-testing boondoggle cleaned up.Crude Truckin' Thanks this. -
MIT Thanks this.
-
Poppy324 Thanks this.
-
-
Poppy324 Thanks this.
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 8 of 9