[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35887-35892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17306]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    NHTSA anticipates funding, under a separate announcement, two (2) 
to four (4) demonstration and evaluation projects for a period of two 
years for selected states 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. Because of 
the many complex practical and legal issues associated with designing 
and implementing a program of this type, NHTSA intends to follow a two 
stage process to encourage states to participate in the demonstration 
program. The first step involves the issuance of planning grants 
(covered under this notice), followed by competitively awarded 
demonstration grants (covered under a separate announcement to be 
issued at a later date).

DATES: Applications must be received at the office designated below on 
or before August 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the National Highway 
Traffic Administration, Office of Contracts and Procurement (NAD-30), 
ATTN: Joe Comella, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC 
20590. All applications submitted must include a reference to NHTSA 
Grant Program No. DTNH22-97-G-05277. Interested applicants are advised 
that no separate application package exists beyond the contents of this 
announcement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General administrative questions may 
be directed to Joe Comella, Office of Contracts and Procurement, at 
(202-366-9568). Programmatic questions relating to this grant program 
should be directed to Dr. Richard P. Compton, Science Advisor, Traffic 
Safety Programs, NHTSA, Room 6240 (NTS-30), 400 7th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2699).

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.
    A task force, led by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and including 
representatives from the Departments of Education (DOE), Health and 
Human Services (DHHS), and Justice (DOJ), studied the issues. The task 
force reviewed relevant background information, consulted with 
interested agencies, organizations, and constituencies (including youth 
in 27 states, the District of Columbia, the Cherokee Nation and the 
Virgin Islands), and drafted recommendations for consideration.
    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.
    Many choices must be made in implementing a pre-driver licensure 
drug testing program: Who should be tested, when and by whom should 
they be tested, for what drugs, and under what circumstances. Some 
options raise substantial legal issues; some are quite expensive. Other 
options raise procedural or logistical issues or may have unexpected 
effects. Because of these complexities, it was felt that a 2-4 state 
demonstration program will encourage different approaches to be tested 
and evaluated, so that their strengths and weaknesses can be 
determined.
    NHTSA aims to determine the effectiveness of pre-licensure drug 
testing on reducing drug use, drug impaired driving and promoting 
public safety, determine the impacts of promising program models, and 
address a range of implementation issues of importance to other states, 
the Federal Government, and the general driving public. Evaluation 
findings will be shared with State administrators to help them in their 
efforts to improve safety on their roads and reduce drug use in their 
states.
    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.
    This program announcement consists of four parts. Part I provides 
background information on drug use by youth, drugs and driving, state 
laws regarding driving under the influence of drugs, drug

[[Page 35888]]

testing experience, methods of drug testing, drug testing procedures, 
drug testing costs, and intervention and treatment for drugs. Part II 
describes the activities supported by this announcement. Part III 
describes the application requirements and instructions for the 
development and submission of applications. Part IV describes the 
application review process.

Part I--Background Information

Drug Use by American Youth Is Increasing

    In the last few years America has made significant progress against 
drug use and related crime. For example, the number of Americans who 
use cocaine has been reduced by 30% since 1992. However, the evidence 
is clear that drug use among American youth is increasing. Drug use by 
youth peaked in the late 1970s and then declined steadily through the 
next decade. It began to increase again in the early 1990s. These 
trends are documented in the 1996 Monitoring the Future Study, a self-
reported survey of 49,000 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students which 
reports drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, along with attitudes toward 
drug use. This study has been conducted annually for 22 years by the 
University of Michigan. The proportion of 8th graders using illicit 
drugs (including LSD, other hallucinogens, amphetamines, stimulants and 
inhalants) in the past year more than doubled since 1991 (11% to 24%), 
and 12th grader use increased by more than one third (29% to 40%).
    Marijuana use showed the sharpest increase (for example, the 
proportion of 8th graders using marijuana in the past year tripled 
since 1991, rising from 6% in 1991 to 18% in 1996). In addition, the 
perceived risk of using drugs declined throughout the 1990s (perceived 
``great risk'' of occasional marijuana use among 12th graders dropped 
from 41% in 1991 to 26% in 1996).
    These findings are confirmed by several other national surveys. The 
National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (1995), sponsored by the 
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), reported that marijuana 
use by 12-17 year olds increased from 1991 to 1994. The Youth Risk 
Behavior Survey (1995), sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control 
(CDC), found that 26% of 12th graders reported using marijuana within 
the past month. The 9th Annual Survey of Students (1995-96), conducted 
by the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE), 
found that the proportion of 9-12th graders who said they had used 
marijuana during the past year more than doubled, rising from 17% in 
1991-92 to 34% in 1995-96.
    The evidence is clear and consistent: While still well below the 
peak levels attained in the late 1970s, youth drug use has risen 
steadily in the 1990s.

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.

Driving While Under the Influence of Drugs Is Not Uncommon

    The nature and extent to which drugs other than alcohol are a 
serious highway safety problem among the general driving population 
cannot be specified with certainty. While good data exist on alcohol-
involved crashes, data are limited regarding what drugs, at what 
levels, impair driving and cause crashes.
    The available information from studies of drivers who have been 
involved in crashes indicates that many have used drugs. NHTSA 
estimates that drugs are used by approximately 10% to 22% of drivers 
involved in crashes, often in combination with alcohol. In a NHTSA 
study of 1,882 fatally injured drivers from seven states in 1990-91, 
alcohol was found in 51.5% and other drugs were found in 17.8% of the 
drivers. Of the 17.8 % of the drivers found to have used other drugs, 
alcohol was present in two-thirds (11.4%) and drugs alone in one-third 
(6.4%). Marijuana was found in 6.7% of the fatally injured drivers, 
cocaine in 5.3%, benzodiazepines in 2.9%, and amphetamines in 1.9%.
    Studies of drivers injured in crashes or cited for traffic 
violations also show that many have used drugs. In an ongoing NHTSA 
study of non-fatally injured drivers in Rochester, New York, 12% of all 
drivers tested positive for drugs other than alcohol (43 out of 360 
cases), and 23.5% of drivers under 21 years old tested positive for 
drugs other than alcohol (4 out of 17 cases). Studies of crash involved 
drivers taken for medical treatment to a hospital emergency room have 
shown positive drug rates ranging from below 10% to as high as 30% to 
40%. Studies of drug incidence among drivers arrested for motor vehicle 
offenses have found drugs in 15% to 50% of drivers. The higher rates 
typically are more prevalent among drivers who have been arrested for 
impaired or reckless driving but who were not impaired by alcohol (as 
shown by low BAC levels).
    Self-reported information confirms that teenagers use marijuana in 
driving situations. PRIDE's 9th Annual Survey of Students, an annual 
self-administered questionnaire given to students in grades 6-12, 
sampled 129,560 students in 26 states during the 1995-1996 school year. 
Students in the 12th grade reported that 20.0% smoke marijuana in a 
car, 16.3% drink beer in a car, 12.5% drink liquor in a car, and 9.5% 
drink wine coolers in a car. When all senior high school students were 
asked if and where they use marijuana, they reported: 23.9% at a 
friend's house, 15.9% in a car, 11.6% at home, 6.5% at school, and 
19.5% in other places.
    In informal discussions with almost 6,000 teenagers conducted for 
this task force by youth-oriented organizations including Students 
Against Driving Drunk (SADD), PRIDE, the National 4-H, and the United 
National Indian Tribal Youth, about two-thirds reported that they 
personally know someone who has driven a car after using marijuana or 
another drug.

State Laws Regarding Driving Under the Influence of Drugs

    It is illegal in all states to drive a motor vehicle under the 
influence of either alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, or a combination 
of alcohol and other drugs. The term ``drug'' (other than alcohol) 
varies from state to state. Some states include any substance that can 
impair driving performance while other states list specific substances. 
Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have ``per se'' alcohol 
laws that make it illegal to drive with more than a specified alcohol 
concentration (Blood or Breath Alcohol Content, or BAC) in the driver's 
body, such as 0.08 or 0.10 BAC for adults. However, only seven states 
have a per se drug law that makes it illegal to drive with more than a 
specific amount of a controlled substance in the driver's body.
    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).

Drug Testing Experiences

    The Federal Government administers a drug testing program, 
including random testing, that covers about 467,000 Federal employees 
in safety-and security-sensitive positions. The program includes pre-
employment, reasonable suspicion, accident or unsafe practice, random, 
return-to-duty, and follow-up testing. Tests are conducted under the 
Department of Health and Human Services's Mandatory Guidelines for 
Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (59 FR 29908: June 9, 1994). 
Under these guidelines, DHHS certifies commercial laboratories to 
conduct urine tests for five drug classes (marijuana, opiates, cocaine, 
amphetamines, and PCP). There are detailed protocols for testing, a 
chain of custody procedure, confirmation testing, and a review of the 
results by a Medical Review Officer (MRO). These protections are a 
major factor in the successful defense of the program against legal 
challenges.
    DOT requires transportation employers to conduct drug and alcohol 
tests on the over 8 million safety-sensitive transportation workers. 
Covered employees include truck and bus drivers, transit vehicle 
operators, airline flight crews, shipboard personnel on a wide variety 
of vessels, railroad operating crews, and pipeline operators. For 
instance, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) drug testing rule 
applies to employees subject to the Hours of Service Act (train and 
engine crews, employees engaged in the communication of train orders, 
and employees engaged in maintenance of signal systems).
    The Department of Defense (DOD) requires random urinalysis of 
military personnel. Each year the DOD conducts 2.8 million urinalysis 
tests on its military population of 1.5 million uniformed personnel. 
Approximately 0.5% to 1% of the individuals test positive for illegal 
substances. Additionally, the three Military Services administer drug 
tests to all recruits either at Military Entrance Processing Stations 
or Recruit Training Commands. Even though the recruits receive 
substantial advance notice that they will be drug tested, some 3.2%, or 
approximately 8,800 recruits, tested positive for illicit drugs in 
Fiscal Year 1996. DOD operates six drug-testing laboratories for the 
analysis of military personnel drug specimens.
    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.

Methods of Drug Testing

    Urine testing is relatively inexpensive and represents the most 
widely accepted methodology for drug testing. It is scientifically 
reliable and, as a result, numerous state and federal courts have 
upheld urinalysis results. Laboratory-based urine testing is the 
methodology of choice for drug testing within the Federal government 
and the military, as well as in industry and workplace drug testing 
programs. On-site urinalysis is utilized on a more limited basis.
    There also is an extensive body of literature on the use of blood 
testing. Blood testing is used in post mortem death investigations, by 
law enforcement officers to establish driving under the influence of 
drugs, in post-accident investigations conducted by the National 
Transportation Safety Board and the FRA, for clinical diagnosis for 
drug overdose purposes, and in research on pharmacologic agents. While 
the intrusion needed to obtain a sample is greater with blood than with 
other methods, the use of blood has been accepted and routinely upheld 
by the courts for both criminal and civil purposes.
    Hair analysis has been accepted by a number of courts for cocaine 
testing. However, courts also have recognized some potential 
limitations of its use. For example, at least two courts have observed 
that hair analysis may not reliably indicate that an individual used a 
drug one time, or sporadically, as opposed to habitual or chronic use. 
There is some basis for questioning its use in detecting marijuana (the 
drug most commonly used by young people) because of methodological 
problems in detecting marijuana in hair. Also, the hair of a non-
smoking individual could possibly absorb ambient marijuana smoke or 
other smokable drugs. In addition, the use of hair analysis may raise 
concerns of discrimination because test results reportedly may vary 
according to a subject's race, gender and hair length and color.
    Sweat patches and saliva testing are emerging methods that are 
currently being used in limited situations. Sweat patches are used in 
the gaming industry for pre-employment testing and saliva testing is 
used by the criminal justice system for monitoring parolees and 
prisoners. To date, there have been no reported judicial decisions that 
address the reliability or admissibility of these testing methods.

Drug Testing Procedures

    The DOT and DHHS programs for employees use well-established 
collection, testing, and reporting procedures that have consistently 
been upheld by the courts. Under these procedures, at the time of 
testing, employees are directed to specific locations that are capable 
of collecting urine to be used in the drug tests. Employees must 
provide positive identification when they appear at the location. 
Standardized procedures are used to ensure, for example, that privacy 
is protected and that specific specimens belong to specific employees.
    Urine specimens are forwarded from the collection sites to 
laboratories certified by DHHS where the drug tests are performed. All 
samples are screened using FDA approved immunoassay for five drug 
classes--marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP. 
Confirmation tests are conducted on all positive screened urine 
specimens and results are certified by a laboratory scientist. 
Laboratories have fixed testing levels for screening and confirmation 
to rule out non-drug use (i.e., to avoid a positive result due to 
passive inhalation or ambient exposure).

[[Page 35890]]

    Test results are reported to physicians (Medical Review Officers, 
or MROs) and, in the case of a positive result, the MRO confers with 
the employee to determine whether the positive test result was caused 
by a legitimate use of medication. A positive laboratory test due to a 
legitimate alternative medical explanation is reported as a negative 
result; non-medical use is reported to the employer as a positive 
result.
    Some programs, such as those for state, local or private employees 
and athletes, use procedures that are similar (urinalysis is still 
used), but more varied. For example, the employees may be permitted to 
be tested by any laboratory, rather than a DHHS-certified laboratory, 
and the laboratory may use procedures for the sample's collection, 
handling and transportation that are not standardized. These procedures 
may be quicker and easier to use, but they also may offer less 
credibility and may be less likely to withstand a legal challenge.

Drug Testing Costs and Time Requirements

    It is estimated that conducting drug tests using DOT/DHHS-approved 
procedures for collection, testing, MRO review, and reporting would 
cost $35 to $45 per test, and results would be available (for both 
screening and confirmation tests) within 3 to 5 days. These procedures 
require standardized collection steps that are used at over 10,000 
sites across the U.S., testing at any of the 69 DHHS-certified 
laboratories, and review of positive results by qualified physicians.
    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.

Intervention and Treatment for Drugs

    Within appropriate legal limitations, those who test positive for 
drugs at the time of driver's license application should be given the 
opportunity to obtain counseling, treatment, or other appropriate 
interventions. Persons who test positive may only be experimenting with 
drugs or they may have a serious substance abuse problem. Those who 
test positive should be assessed and referred to appropriate 
interventions as a condition of reapplying for a driver's license.
    It is beyond the scope of this announcement to address the complex 
issues regarding drug assessment and intervention for youth. These 
issues include the assessment instruments to be used, the authority to 
impose interventions, what agencies should be responsible, and how 
assessment and treatment should be funded. In addition, constitutional 
protections must be considered regarding the consent of minors, 
particularly in the area of the right to privacy and confidentiality of 
medical and court records. Youth substance abusers may have multiple 
diagnoses, dysfunctional families that cannot provide sufficient 
support, or suffer from emotional or physical abuse.
    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.

Part II--Objectives

    The purpose of this announcement is to solicit applications for 
planning grants to support a State agency to investigate, develop and 
plan the implementation of a pre-driver licensure drug testing program. 
Recipients will be expected to use the financial award to develop a 
detailed pre-driver licensure drug testing program implementation plan. 
A subsequent grant announcement will be made in FY 1998 to fund 
implementation of selected demonstration programs.
    Key issues to be addressed in the pre-driver licensure drug testing 
program implementation plan are:
    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.
    3. Sample collection location--Collection arrangements (for 
example, at a Motor Vehicle Department, a physician's office, or 
another site) and procedures can be left to the states if procedures 
are in place to ensure donor privacy and verify that a specific 
specimen belongs to a specific donor.
    4. Drugs included in tests--Demonstration states must test for 
marijuana, the drug most commonly used by youth. Other drugs also may 
be tested at the states' discretion. In particular, states may test 
different drugs in different communities or at different times to 
address drugs in current use.
    5. Testing methods used--The government-standard methodology of 
urine screening, with confirmation by Gas Chromatography/Mass

[[Page 35891]]

Spectrometry (GC/MS), is recommended. States may choose other methods 
if they can demonstrate that these methods are scientifically and 
legally supportable.
    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.
    7. Consequence of a positive test--Driver license applicants should 
not be permitted to reapply for a specified period of time. States may 
wish to allow shorter suspension times for youth who are successfully 
carrying out assigned drug treatment programs.
    8. Medical Review Officer (MRO)--It is recommended that a medical 
review officer be involved in reviewing all positive test results. Upon 
request of the applicant, all confirmed positive tests should be 
reported to an MRO to determine if legitimate medical reasons, under 
Federal law, exist to explain the positive test results. If a 
legitimate medical reason exists, the MRO should report the result as a 
negative test.
    9. Intervention and treatment--All state demonstrations should 
include procedures to evaluate individuals who test positive for drugs 
and refer them to intervention and treatment programs where 
appropriate.
    10. Evaluation plan--Each state demonstration must evaluate and 
report on its operations and results. The evaluations would analyze the 
effects of each demonstration on teenage drug use and would report on 
any unexpected effects. During implementation of the demonstration 
programs DOT will conduct an independent evaluation which will compare 
and report on all the demonstrations.

Consultant Support

    Recipients are encouraged during the planning grant to obtain 
expertise in a variety of areas including: (1) Drug use patterns in 
their state; (2) legal issues pertaining to testing of minors and the 
relevant state laws pertaining to drug testing driver license 
applicants; (3) drug testing methodology and procedures; (4) drug 
testing costs and time requirements; (5) intervention and treatment 
programs for drugs; and (6) evaluation design and data requirements.

Planning Meeting

    Shortly after initial awards have been made, recipients will be 
encouraged to attend a planning meeting in Washington, DC, during which 
NHTSA will bring together State and Federal (DOT, ONDCP, DHHS, DOE, and 
DOJ) staff and outside experts to discuss issues relevant to developing 
an effective, practical, and permissible pre-driver licensure drug 
testing program. Issues to be discussed at this meeting will include 
legal issues, drug testing methodology and procedures, costs, 
intervention and treatment options, positive drug test notification 
options, and evaluation design and data requirements. Funds to support 
travel of state staff to such a meeting should be included in the 
budgets submitted. For budget purposes, applicants should assume the 
meeting will be held over a two-day period.

NHTSA Involvement

    NHTSA will:
    1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) 
to participate in the planning and management of the Grant and to 
coordinate activities between the Grantee and NHTSA.
    2. Serve as a liaison between DOT's Office of Drug and Alcohol 
Policy and Compliance, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, DHHS 
(including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration--SAMHSA and the National Institute of Drug Abuse--NIDA), 
DOE, and DOJ and others (e.g., American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators--AAMVA) interested in the pre-driver licensure drug 
testing approach and the activities of the grantee.
    3. Provide information and technical assistance from government 
sources within available resources and as determined appropriate by the 
COTR.
    4. Stimulate the transfer of information among grant recipients and 
others interested in grant activities.

Funding Support

    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.

Period of Performance

    The period of performance for this grant program will be six months 
from the effective date of award.

Additional Information

    Subject to availability of funds, the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration/Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 
(SAMHSA/CSAT), in its FY 1998 program to expand drug treatment for 
adolescents, plans to give priority to States participating in the pre-
driver licensure drug testing demonstration program.

Part III--Application Requirements

Eligibility

    Only applications received from a State agency will be considered. 
Applications may be submitted by state driver licensing agencies, 
health (substance abuse) agencies, or a combination of both. 
Collaboration during the pre-application phase is encouraged, however, 
only one application will be considered from a State.

Application Procedures and Contents

    Each applicant must submit one original and five copies of the 
application package to: NHTSA, Office of Contracts and Procurement 
(NAD-30), ATTN: Joe Comella, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 5301, Washington, 
DC 20590. Applications shall be limited to 20 pages, typed on one side 
of the page only, and must include a reference to NHTSA Grant Program 
No. DTNH22-97-G-05277. Resumes or qualification statements are not 
included in the page count. Only complete packages received on or 
before August 12, 1997 will be considered.
    Applications for this program must include the following:
    1. Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance)--
Application Cover Sheet
    2. Standard Form 424A (Budget Information--Non-Construction 
Programs)--A separate budget justification should be included to 
explain fully and justify major items (e.g., personnel, fringe 
benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, sub-contracts, consultants, 
indirect charges)
    3. Standard Form 424B (Assurances--Non-Construction Programs)--
Required assurances.
    4. A Project Narrative Statement--this should be clear, concise, 
and address the following topics:
    a. A description of how the project will be managed, including how 
the

[[Page 35892]]

recipient intends to organize the planning process, and what state 
agencies will participate and the role they will play.
    b. The application shall identify the proposed project manager and 
any support personnel considered critical to the successful 
accomplishment of this project. Resumes or qualification statements and 
a brief description of their respective organizational responsibilities 
should be included separately.
    c. What issues will be addressed during the planning process (at a 
minimum these must include the issues listed under Part II--
Objectives).
    d. A schedule designed to meet the six month deadline for 
preparation of an implementation plan.
    e. A description of the evaluation approach proposed to determine 
how well the program is implemented, the strengths and weakness of the 
proposed approach, and the effectiveness of the program in 
accomplishing its objectives.

Terms and Conditions of Award

    1. Prior to award, each grantee must comply with the certification 
requirements of 49 CFR part 20, Department of Transportation New 
Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR part 29, Department of 
Transportation government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-
procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free Workplace 
(Grants).
    2. Reporting Requirements and Deliverables:
    A. A Progress Report to be submitted half-way through the grant 
period that should include a summary of the activities and 
accomplishments to-date, as well as the proposed activities to complete 
the planning process. Any decisions and actions required in the 
upcoming quarter should be included in the report. The grantee shall 
supply the progress report to the Contracting Officer's Technical 
Representative (COTR) three (3) months following date of award.
    B. Final Report and Implementation Plan: The grantee shall prepare 
a Final Report and Implementation Plan that includes a description of 
the issues addressed during the planning process, the process followed, 
and how the issues were resolved. The Implementation Plan should 
address issues including: who should be tested, when and by whom should 
they be tested, for what drugs, and under what circumstances. It should 
also address the issue of how the grantee proposes to evaluate the 
program once implemented. This evaluation plan should include a 
description of the design, data elements, and how the effects of the 
program will be determined. The grantee shall submit the Final Report 
and Implementation Plan to the COTR by the end of the performance 
period.
    3. Receipt of a planning grant under this announcement does not 
guarantee award of a Phase 2 Implementation Grant, though the advanced 
planning will clearly enhance the recipient's ability to prepare a 
detail proposal for the Phase 2 Implementation Grant.
    4. During the effective performance period of grants awarded as a 
result of this announcement, the agreement as applicable to the 
grantee, shall be subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's General Provisions for Assistance Agreements.

Part IV--Application Review Process

    Timely application packages from eligible applicants will be 
reviewed to confirm that they include all of the items specified in the 
Application Procedures and Contents section of this announcement. Each 
complete application from an eligible recipient will then be evaluated 
by an Evaluation Committee to determine whether the applicant 
demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements for a pre-
driver licensure drug testing program, has proposed to use the federal 
funds in a manner consistent with the objectives specified in Part II, 
has provided a reasonable plan for accomplishing the objectives of the 
project within the time frame set out in this announcement, and has 
proposed an acceptable budget. Each of these criteria will be rated as 
acceptable or unacceptable. Only proposals rated acceptable on every 
criteria will be eligible for funding.

    Issued on: June 26, 1997.
James Hedlund,
Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-17306 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P