The Department of Transportation last month filed a Final Rule allowing oral fluid as an authorized testing method for the presence of unlawful drugs effective June 1. However, in order for an employer to implement oral fluid testing under DOT's regulation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first has to certify at least two laboratories for oral fluid testing, which has not yet been done.
So while oral swab testing has been authorized as of today, it can't be implemented until HHS issues its approvals: at least one lab to test primary samples and at least one more to re-test contested samples.
[Related: Oral fluid drug test likely to put more 'cheaters' in FMCSA's Clearinghouse]
"Carriers should hold off on transitioning to oral fluid testing until HHS has approved at least two labs to process oral fluid samples," said Trucksafe Consulting President Brandon Wiseman, adding "it's tough to say" how long certification might take, putting trucking fleets in wait-and-see mode with today's would-be rollout of the program on pause.
National Drug Screening President Joe Reilly said it's of little surprise that HHS hasn't picked at least two testing facilities because "no labs have even applied for HHS approval yet. I met with all of them last week and all said late 2023 or early 2024 before they expect to be approved and operational with oral fluid testing."
Twenty labs are approved for urinalysis, and major companies like Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp, Alere Toxicology, MedTox and Clinical Reference Labs own about 90% of the drug screening market, Reilly said, adding the delay in approvals was expected as testing facilities "would not have incurred the time and expense of the workload and application process without DOT final approval."
The oral fluid testing rule wasn't passed in an effort to phase out urinalysis, the current most popular screening method. Rather it gives fleets another option to deploy at their discretion. "With both drug testing methodologies being scientifically accurate and forensically defensible, there is no reason to eliminate either methodology," the final rule reads. "Similarly, we see no reason to mandate either methodology."
