The Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Public Safety Improvement Act of 2025 directs the Secretary of Transportation to require motor carriers that operate vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or more to submit any record of a positive hair drug test (from preemployment or random tests administered through specified devices) to the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. The bill calls for those hair tests to come from laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) for forensic hair drug testing and, where available, to follow Department of Health and Human Services scientific and technical guidance.
It also defines “covered device” as one cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) pathway and gives the Secretary one year to issue implementing regulations, including updating 49 CFR 382.107 to treat hair positives as “actual knowledge.”
This changes who and what data feed the Clearinghouse and therefore how employers and regulators learn about drivers’ positive drug results. Adding hair testing introduces longer detection windows and new laboratory and device standards into DOT drug-testing practice, with direct effects on carrier hiring, driver eligibility for safety-sensitive duties, and the market for testing labs and diagnostics manufacturers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires carriers operating vehicles of at least 10,000 pounds to promptly submit positive hair drug-test records from preemployment or random tests administered through devices cleared under FDA 510(k) to the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. It requires those tests to come from CAP-accredited forensic hair-testing labs and directs the Secretary to issue implementing regulations within one year.
Who It Affects
Commercial motor carriers subject to FMCSA rules, current and prospective CDL drivers, laboratories that perform hair testing, manufacturers of hair-testing devices cleared via the FDA 510(k) pathway, and the FMCSA as regulator and Clearinghouse operator.
Why It Matters
The Clearinghouse becomes a repository for a different class of drug-test evidence: hair results, which show past use over weeks or months rather than recent use. That broadens the Clearinghouse’s reach, shifts testing industry standards toward CAP accreditation and FDA-cleared devices, and raises compliance, technical, and fairness questions for employers and drivers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends federal motor-carrier drug-testing law to add hair-test positives to the kinds of results that must be reported to the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. It ties reporting to three technical conditions: the test must be a preemployment or random hair drug test; the test must be administered using a device cleared under FDA section 510(k); and the result must come from a laboratory accredited by the College of American Pathologists for forensic hair drug testing.
The bill does not create a new disciplinary regime; rather, it folds hair-test positives into existing Clearinghouse recordkeeping and the regulatory concept of “actual knowledge,” which shapes employer obligations under FMCSA rules.
Practically, adding hair testing to the Clearinghouse means employers and regulators will see results that reflect drug exposure over a longer timeframe than urine-based DOT tests. The requirement that labs hold CAP forensic accreditation and 'incorporate, if available, HHS scientific and technical guidelines' raises the bar for technical compliance but leaves room for uneven standards while agencies adopt guidance.
The bill’s device definition limits eligible tests to those using FDA 510(k)-cleared equipment, anchoring admissibility to the FDA’s regulatory pathway rather than an independent DOT approval process.The bill also forces a quick regulatory timeline: the Secretary must issue necessary regulations within one year and explicitly update 49 CFR 382.107 so that hair-test positives count as “actual knowledge.” That timeline sets a hard deadline for FMCSA to define submission processes, timing requirements (what 'promptly' means), chain-of-custody procedures, how Medical Review Officers and employers must handle disputes, and how Clearinghouse records will display and be contested. Those operational details will determine whether hair testing functions as an effective safety signal or creates widespread compliance confusion.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires motor carriers using vehicles weighing at least 10,000 pounds to promptly submit any record of a positive hair drug test from preemployment or random testing to the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.
Hair-test results submitted to the Clearinghouse must come from laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists for forensic hair drug testing.
Laboratories submitting results must incorporate Department of Health and Human Services scientific and technical guidelines for hair testing, but only 'if available,' which leaves room for interim variability in standards.
The bill limits covered hair tests to those administered through devices cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) pathway (i.e.
devices demonstrated to be substantially equivalent to a predicate device).
The Secretary of Transportation must issue regulations within one year and update 49 CFR 382.107 so hair-test positives are included in the regulatory definition of 'actual knowledge.'.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s short name: the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Public Safety Improvement Act of 2025. This is a formality but signals the drafters’ intent: to treat the change as a safety improvement rather than a technical tweak.
Reporting requirement for positive hair tests
Adds a reporting duty: motor carriers (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102) that use vehicles of at least 10,000 pounds must 'promptly submit' records of positive hair drug tests from preemployment or random testing to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. The provision imposes the obligation directly on motor carriers rather than on labs or manufacturers; how carriers obtain certified results from labs and how quickly they must transmit them will be addressed in implementing regulations.
Laboratory accreditation and scientific guidance
Requires that submitted hair-test results be produced by labs accredited by the College of American Pathologists specifically for forensic hair drug testing. It also directs labs to incorporate HHS scientific and technical guidelines 'if available.' That combination elevates the technical bar for admissible hair-test reports but also introduces ambiguity because accreditation availability, the timeline for CAP accreditation, and the optional nature of HHS guidance could create uneven implementation.
Definition of 'covered device'
Defines 'covered device' narrowly as devices cleared under FDA section 510(k). Using 510(k) as the device standard ties acceptability to the FDA’s substantial-equivalence pathway, not to a separate DOT validation process. That matters for device manufacturers and for which testing modalities can be used: only tests run on devices that have secured 510(k) clearance will produce reportable results under the statute.
Regulatory deadline and update to 'actual knowledge'
Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue necessary regulations within one year and to update 49 CFR 382.107 to include hair-test results in the definition of 'actual knowledge.' That change will make hair positives functionally equivalent to other Clearinghouse-recordable violations for the purposes of employer obligations under FMCSA rules, subject to the content of the forthcoming regulations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FMCSA and public-safety advocates — gain a broader dataset on driver drug use by adding hair-test positives to the Clearinghouse, potentially improving long-term monitoring of substance use patterns tied to commercial driving safety.
- Testing laboratories with CAP forensic accreditation — stand to gain business, because the statute requires CAP-accredited labs for reportable hair-testing results, creating a premium for accredited providers.
- Manufacturers of FDA 510(k)-cleared hair-testing devices — will see stronger market demand because only devices cleared through the 510(k) pathway are treated as 'covered devices' for reportable results.
- Carriers that already use validated hair testing — may benefit competitively by reducing hiring and retention risk if hair testing helps identify prior drug use that correlates with safety risks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Motor carriers (especially smaller carriers) — face new administrative and compliance costs to receive certified hair-test reports, ensure timely submission to the Clearinghouse, and adjust hiring and retention policies.
- Commercial drivers — face expanded exposure to test results with longer detection windows, which increases the risk that historical (non-recent) drug use will affect current employability and safety-certification status.
- Laboratories without CAP forensic accreditation — will incur costs to obtain accreditation or risk losing market share for Clearinghouse-reportable tests, potentially reducing capacity during the transition.
- FMCSA and implementing agencies — will need to allocate staff and rule-writing resources to meet the one-year regulatory deadline and to resolve technical questions about 'prompt' reporting, dispute resolution, and how hair results integrate with existing DOT procedures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between two legitimate goals: improving roadway safety by broadening the Clearinghouse to capture longer-term evidence of drug exposure, and protecting drivers and employers from being penalized on the basis of test methods that detect historical (not necessarily impairing) use and that can vary in accuracy across individuals and laboratories. The bill pushes for safety through data expansion, but it leaves unresolved how to ensure scientific validity, equitable outcomes, and practical implementability within the tight one-year rulemaking window.
The bill straightforwardly folds hair-test positives into the Clearinghouse, but it leaves important operational design questions to regulation. The statute mandates CAP forensic accreditation and favors HHS guidance 'if available,' but it does not define 'promptly,' set performance standards for device manufacturers beyond FDA 510(k) clearance, or specify how Medical Review Officers and employers must resolve disputes about hair-test validity.
Those gaps matter: hair tests have longer detection windows and different vulnerability to environmental contamination and hair-type effects than urine tests, so chain-of-custody, cutoff concentrations, and corroborating evidence will determine how fair and reliable Clearinghouse reporting is in practice.
Relying on FDA 510(k) clearance aligns admissibility with a familiar regulatory pathway, but 510(k) demonstrates substantial equivalence rather than clinical sensitivity or specificity validated for DOT workplace testing. CAP accreditation is a recognized quality mark, yet the availability of CAP-accredited forensic hair testing labs varies geographically and may create capacity bottlenecks or cost spikes.
The 'if available' phrase for HHS guidance further tempers the statute’s technical clarity: until HHS issues definitive standards and FMCSA writes implementing rules, stakeholders will face uncertainty about what a compliant hair-test program looks like. Finally, adding long-window hair results to a database that employers consult for real-time hiring decisions risks producing semantics collisions between safety monitoring and employment fairness unless regulations and dispute processes are robust and speedy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.