- [Federal Register: July 2, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 127)] [Notices]

[Page 35887-35892] From the Federal Register Online via

GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02jy97-157]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Discretionary Planning Grants To Support the Demonstration and Evaluation of Pre-Driver Licensure Drug Testing Programs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for grant applications to support planning for the demonstration and evaluation of pre-driver licensure drug testing programs.

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces the availability of Federal funds to support the planning effort necessary to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of pre-driver licensure drug testing to deter drug use, reduce drug impaired driving, and promote public safety. Depending on availability of funds, up to $2 million will be made available for these planning grants. The planning grants solicited by this announcement will allow interested states to carefully investigate the options and resolve the many complex practical and legal issues associated with developing a pre-driver licensure drug testing program and to develop a detailed proposal for federal funding to support implementation of the demonstration program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

President Clinton's Directive

President Clinton, in his weekly radio address to the nation on October 19, 1996, urged stronger measures to reduce the incidence of drug use by teens and reduce driving under the influence of drugs in general. That same day, the President asked the Director of National Drug Control Policy and the Secretary of Transportation to present recommendations to him within 90 days that would meet the two goals.

The President's directive specifically requested that the recommendations consider drug testing for minors applying for driver licenses.

Those recommendations called for a Federally funded demonstration program, conducted by 2-4 states over two years, to devise and test essential core elements of pre-driver licensure drug testing. The demonstration states would have considerable flexibility in implementing the program, which would be fully evaluated through a single, independent evaluation.

The task force felt that pre-licensure testing would send an important message to America's youth that drugs and driving don't mix. It should be instituted as part of a systematic strategy to deter drug use and drugged driving. Pre-licensure testing, by itself, should reduce drug use and drugged driving by some youth. If combined with some form of unscheduled testing, after crashes or driving violations, its effects should be even greater and will promote public safety.

Drug testing would also identify youth who are experimenting with or using drugs so that they can be referred to drug assessment and appropriate interventions as a condition of reapplying for a driver's license.

Planning grants made available under this announcement will be for a period not to exceed six (6) months. In FY 1998, the Federal Government will solicit proposals for federal support to implement pre-licensure drug testing programs. A separate application will be necessary to be considered for an implementation grant. States choosing not to participate in these planning grants may still apply for an implementation grant.

Marijuana Is Harmful

Research shows that marijuana is harmful to the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. It limits learning, memory, perception, judgment, and complex motor skills like those needed to drive a vehicle. Marijuana smoke typically contains over 400 compounds, some of which are carcinogenic. In addition, new evidence suggests that marijuana may be addictive and that, among heavy users, its harmful short-term effects on alertness and attention span last more than 24 hours.

Most states have ``implied consent'' laws for drugs under which a driver implicitly consents to a chemical test if a law enforcement officer has arrested the driver for, or has probable cause to suspect that the driver has committed, a drugged driving offense. All states have implied consent laws for alcohol. Implied consent laws also allow law enforcement officers to request a physical skills test to obtain information [[Page 35889]] on the driver's level of impairment. Signs of impairment establish probable cause that a driver has been operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or other drug. Failure of a chemical test (with a BAC exceeding the state per se level), or the refusal to submit to a chemical test, results in a driver's license suspension or revocation. A few states have a ``one test'' rule which allows only a single chemical test (for alcohol or drugs).

In addition to these broad Federal programs, drug testing programs also are conducted in other contexts, such as for state, local and private employees; high school and professional athletes; and individuals who have been incarcerated in prison or who are on parole.   If states were to develop drug testing programs for young people prior to their obtaining a driver's license, states should be sensitive to upholding constitutional standards under the Fourth Amendment (reasonable ``search'' in the procurement of the individual's blood, breath, urine, or other specimen), and under the equal protection clause and the due process clause. States also should take into account statutory requirements which may bear on the implementation of a drug testing program, such as the Age Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many drug testing programs have been challenged in court, and it is likely that drug testing programs that are developed in the future will be challenged as well. Generally, the courts have upheld drug testing programs that are reasonably designed to promote important government interests (such as protecting public safety), use proper collection procedures, and employ laboratory analysis procedures that ensure the accuracy of drug testing results.

It is estimated that once facilities are constructed and operating, conducting drug tests ``on-site'' (i.e., at a state Division of Motor Vehicles facility) would cost $25 to $45, and more if positive-screened specimens are forwarded to a laboratory for confirmation. If the results of on-site screening tests are negative, these results would be available within a few hours. If the results of these screening tests are positive, confirmation would be required and the results would be available within 3 to 5 days.

Detection of drug use could be potentially enhanced by using random testing. Costs could be reduced by randomly testing only a portion of the applicants rather than testing every applicant. It is likely that test costs would increase if specimens other than urine are used. For example, according to DHHS, the cost range for a blood test is from $50-$200. Saliva test costs are similar to blood ($50-$200) and hair testing costs are $50-$100.

With these issues in mind, the following are examples of how drug interventions for youth could be incorporated within a drug testing program. After the first positive drug test, an assessment could be conducted to determine if the youth has a substance abuse problem. If the assessment indicates no addictive disorder, interventions would not include substance abuse treatment, but would include denial of the driver's permit and could also include participation in a drug education program or other interventions as a condition of reapplying for a driver's license. If the assessment indicates that there is an addictive disorder, the interventions could include referral for a more detailed assessment and then treatment, in addition to the denial of the driver's permit and other appropriate measures. If a youth has a subsequent positive drug test, he or she would be referred for assessment and treatment if a referral had not been made previously. Interventions at this point could include driver license suspension, revocation, or denial, and could also include a curfew, fines, or the execution of a contract between youths and their parents agreeing to participate together in a treatment program. This system could be implemented within a graduated driver licensing system.

1. Responsible state agency--The state agency that will be responsible for administering the drug testing program must be determined. The program will certainly involve the Motor Vehicle Department in as much as it will have to determine that a driver license applicant has taken and passed a required drug test. It should involve the State Substance Abuse Agency in the response to a positive drug test result (assessment, referral, or intervention).

2. Applicants to be tested--First-time driver's license applicants under 18 must be tested. The states may choose to test others as well. For example, states could test all first-time applicants, regardless of age (this would increase costs only slightly, since most first-time applicants are teenagers, and it would reduce litigation risks based on charges of age discrimination). Each state should consider carefully how its testing program can best address its teenage drug use problems. States may test all license applicants or a randomly-selected sample of at least 25%. Large States may wish to pilot test the drug testing program in only a part of the State.

6. Testing at times and places other than initial licensing--As part of the demonstration program, it is hoped that states will include testing for cause (after a traffic violation or crash). Such testing requirements could be incorporated into a graduated licensing program for beginning drivers.

The Presidential Initiative on Drugs, Driving and Youth calls for $16 million to be made available to fund the pre-driver licensure demonstration program. Subject to the availability of funds, up to $2 million of these funds would be used to support the planning grants covered by this announcement. It is anticipated that the balance of the funding for the implementation grants would be covered under a separate announcement and would be provided over the next three fiscal years (FY 1998 through FY 2000). These additional funds would be sufficient to cover two (2) to four (4) demonstration and evaluation projects for a period of two years. It is anticipated that each planning grant award made under this announcement will be in the $25,000 to $50,000 range, depending on the number of acceptable applications.

Issued on: June 26, 1997.

James Hedlund, Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.

[FR Doc. 97-17306 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]

RETURN TO FREEDOMS Where has all the Freedom Gone

RETURN TO HOME PAGE:  Information for Informed Decisions