Motor Carrier Safety: Preliminary Information on Challenges to Ensuring the Integrity of Drug Testing Programs
Published: 2007-11-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Crashes involving commercial motor carriers, including trucks and buses, account for 13 percent of all highway deaths each year. While illegal drug use is not among the most frequently cited factors associated with large truck crashes; studies show that the use of illegal drugs, such as marijuana, heroin, or cocaine, can severely impair driving ability. Since 1988, federal regulations have required commercial drivers to submit urine samples to be tested for drugs. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is responsible for ensuring compliance with these regulations. News reports and other investigations have raised concerns that drivers may be escaping detection by avoiding the test or somehow altering the results. This testimony provides preliminary information on the challenges confronting FMCSA in (1) overseeing and enforcing compliance with drug testing regulations and (2) ensuring the integrity of the drug tests and the processes for keeping drivers with identified drug problems off the roads. It is based on work currently in process, which includes examining options to address these challenges. GAO's work thus far has included interviews with officials from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), along with a wide variety of stakeholders, including motor carriers, unions, and industry associations. GAO discussed this testimony with DOT officials and incorporated their comments as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: FMCSA faces two key challenges in ensuring that commercial motor carriers have drug testing programs in place. First, there appears to be a significant lack of compliance among motor carriers, particularly small carriers and self-employed drivers. Violations of drug testing protocols are noted in more than 40 percent of FMCSA's safety audits conducted since 2003 of carriers that have recently started operations and more than 70 percent of the compliance reviews conducted on carriers already in the industry since 2001. These problems also extend to service agents, which are entities that collect urine samples or administer other aspects of the program. For example, GAO investigators working under cover tested 24 collection sites and determined that 22 did not fully comply with applicable protocols. The second challenge is that FMCSA's oversight activities are limited, both in quantity and scope. Safety audits, which are targeted at new entrants, began in 2003 and, as a result, do not affect carriers in business earlier than 2003. Such companies can be covered in compliance reviews, but these reviews occur at only about 2 percent of carriers a year, according to FMCSA data. In addition, FMCSA oversight does not specifically address compliance by service agents, such as collection sites, unless there are particular allegations or complaints. Even when FMCSA is able to ensure that carriers and others are in compliance with drug testing requirements, there are additional challenges in ensuring the integrity of drug testing programs. The urine test itself can be subverted in various ways, such as adulterating or diluting the urine sample or substituting synthetic urine or a drug-free sample. Products designed to ''beat'' the test are brazenly marketed on the Internet. The extent to which subversion is occurring is unknown------and is impossible to determine. SAMHSA officials with whom we met told us when adulterants work well and destroy the evidence of their presence, they are undetectable. Furthermore, the required urine test has certain limitations. For example, it covers only five drug categories (marijuana; cocaine; amphetamines; opiates, such as heroin; and phencyclidine (PCP)), and it may provide a clean result if a person has not used any of these drugs within the past several days. Finally, drivers may not disclose instances in which they failed previous drug tests. If they are able to remain drug-free for enough time to pass a preemployment test, their new employer may not know about their past history of drug use. GAO identified various options to address these challenges, some of which were proposed by carriers, industry associations, DOT, and others. These options include publicizing educational information about the regulations for carriers, service agents, and drivers; encouraging carriers to do more to ensure service agent compliance; improving and expanding FMCSA oversight and enforcement authority; adopting federal legislation to prohibit products designed to tamper with a drug test; and developing a national reporting requirement for past positive drug test results. GAO's ongoing work will examine the advantages and disadvantages of the various options in more detail; we expect to issue the report in May 2008.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on drug testing  for those employed in safety-sensitive positions in the motor carrier  industry. The Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that  approximately 4.2 million people, including truck and bus drivers, work in  such positions, and their safety on the road affects the safety of the  traveling public. Commercial motor carriers account for less than 5  percent of all highway crashes, but these crashes result in about 13  percent of all highway deaths, or about 5,500 of the approximately 43,000  highway fatalities that occur nationwide annually. A DOT study on the  factors associated with large truck crashes finds that vehicle factors, such  as brake problems, and behavioral factors, such as speeding and driver  fatigue, are some of the most frequently cited factors involved in large  truck crashes. While illegal drug use is not among the most frequently  cited factors in the DOT study—appearing as an associated factor in only   2 percent of the crashes included in the study—it is clear that the use of  illegal drugs, such as marijuana, heroin, or cocaine, can severely impair  the ability of individuals to drive. Since 1988, federal regulations have  required that these commercial drivers be drug tested. DOT and the  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) publish regulations  that govern the drug testing process. FMCSA is responsible for ensuring  compliance with these regulations, and does so through safety audits of  carriers that have recently started operations and compliance reviews  conducted on carriers already in the market.
Testing results clearly indicate that some drivers are using illegal drugs.  FMCSA data show that each year from 1994 through 2005, between 1.3 and  2.8 percent of drivers tested positive for the presence of illegal drugs  under random testing. However, concerns exist that some drivers may be  escaping detection. Recent drug tests conducted during roadside  inspections of trucks in Oregon suggest that the percentage of truck  drivers using illegal drugs while operating vehicles may be somewhat  higher than FMCSA reports. Furthermore, recent reports have also  suggested that some locations where drug testing specimens are collected  are not in compliance with DOT protocols, which can potentially make it  easier to tamper with or substitute a urine specimen. In 2005, we reported  that products used to tamper with drug use screening tests are widely  available, and that the sheer number of these products, and the ease with  which they are marketed and distributed through the Internet, present  formidable obstacles to the integrity of the drug testing process.
My testimony today addresses what we have learned about these and  other challenges to establishing an effective drug testing program. It is  based primarily on the work we currently are doing for this Subcommittee  and for the Chairman of the full Committee. Our current work, which we  expect to complete in May 2008, addresses the challenges that may be  encountered in implementing federal drug testing regulations; the roles  and responsibilities that federal agencies, state agencies, and others have  in overseeing industry compliance with drug testing regulations, and the  limitations they encounter in regulations or oversight; and the options, if  any, that have been proposed for improving compliance with and  addressing the limitations of drug testing regulations, and the advantages  and disadvantages of these options. Because this work is not yet finished,  my observations today are preliminary in nature. My testimony addresses  the types of challenges confronting FMCSA in (1) overseeing and  enforcing compliance with drug testing regulations and (2) ensuring the  integrity of the drug tests and the processes for keeping drivers with  identified problems off the roads. As part of my observations about these  challenges, I will discuss options we have identified as possible  improvements that we will be looking at in more detail as we continue our  work.
To address these issues, we reviewed DOT and FMCSA regulations,  policies, and reports and interviewed officials from DOT (FMCSA and the  Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance (ODAPC)) and the  Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Substance Abuse and  Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This review focuses on  the controlled substance portion of the drug and alcohol testing  regulations, and does not address alcohol testing. We analyzed FMCSA  data on the results of compliance reviews and safety audits, and data on  enforcement activities. We interviewed representatives from six motor  carriers, including large carriers, small carriers, and an owner-operator.  We interviewed motor carrier industry associations representing many  segments of the motor coach and trucking industry, such as the American  Trucking Association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers  Association, the American Bus Association, and the National Association  of Small Trucking Companies. We also interviewed officials from unions  representing truck and bus drivers and from a variety of associations  representing urine specimen collectors, medical review officers, substance  abuse professionals, drug testing consortiums, and others involved in the  drug testing industry. We also interviewed representatives from one of the  largest laboratories involved in the DOT drug testing industry. In addition,  we observed FMCSA oversight activities, including two compliance  reviews and two new entrant safety audits in California and Virginia. We  selected states in which to observe compliance reviews and new entrant  safety audits on the basis of the availability of on-going FMCSA oversight  activities. As we continue our work, we plan to observe additional  compliance reviews and safety audits. Also, our Forensic Audits and  Special Investigations (FSI) team tested compliance with protocols of  collection sites in three metropolitan areas selected for the large number  of truck drivers residing in those areas, as well as Washington, D.C. Our  undercover investigators posed as commercial truck drivers who needed a  DOT drug test and, in some cases, tested whether they could successfully  adulterate or substitute the specimens. They conducted their investigation  from May to September 2007 in accordance with standards prescribed by  the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We determined that  the data used in this statement are sufficiently reliable for our purposes.  We began our review in June 2007 and are performing it in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal drug testing regulations require commercial motor carriers to have  a drug testing program that covers transportation safety-sensitive  employees who operate commercial motor vehicles that have a gross  vehicle rating of 26,001 pounds or more; are designed to transport 16 or  more passengers, including the driver; or are of any size and are used in  the transportation of hazardous materials. While the largest motor carriers  operate upwards of 50,000 vehicles, most carriers are small, with  approximately 80 percent operating between 1 and 6 vehicles. Carriers  continually enter and exit the industry, and turnover among small carriers  is high, thereby making them harder to track. Since 1998, the industry has  increased in size by an average of about 29,000 interstate carriers per year.
The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 required DOT  to implement drug testing using urine specimens. Carriers are required to  obtain a negative test result prior to employing a driver and allowing him  or her to engage in safety-sensitive duties. Carriers also must conduct  random testing, postaccident testing, and reasonable suspicion testing. As  implemented by DOT, testing covers five drug categories: marijuana,  cocaine, amphetamines (including methamphetamines), opiates (including  heroin), and phencyclidine (PCP). If an employee tests positive, he or she  is required to complete a return-to-duty process before reengaging in  safety-sensitive duties. The return-to-duty process is guided by a substance  abuse professional and may include education, treatment, follow-up  testing, and aftercare.
Motor carriers must implement a drug testing program and may use  service agents to perform some or all of the tasks needed to comply with  DOT drug testing requirements (see fig. 1). A motor carrier must designate  an employer representative, who is an employee authorized by the carrier  to take immediate action to remove a driver from safety-sensitive duties  after being notified of a positive or refusal-to-test result. Service agents  must meet qualification requirements and are responsible for  implementing the required protocols.
Service agents include the following:    A collector instructs drivers during the urine collection process, makes an  initial inspection of the specimen provided, divides the specimen into  primary and split specimens, and sends it to the laboratory for analysis. A  collection site can be a portable toilet; any toilet in a clinic, hospital, or  office building; or a toilet on-site at a carrier’s place of business.
A laboratory analyzes the specimen. Laboratories must be certified by  HHS; as of January 2007, there were 46 such laboratories.
A medical review officer, who is a licensed physician, is responsible for  receiving and reviewing laboratory results for a carrier’s drug testing  program and evaluating medical explanations for certain drug test results.  In cases of confirmed positive or refusal-to-test results, the officer must  verify the laboratory results by speaking with the driver and informing the  driver of his or her right to have the split specimen tested.
A substance abuse professional evaluates drivers who have tested  positive or refused to take a test and makes recommendations about the  return-to-duty process, which could include education, treatment, follow- up testing, and aftercare. Drivers are required to complete the  recommended steps before they reengage in safety-sensitive functions.
A consortium/third-party administrator is a company that can provide  or coordinate either a variety of or all of the above services for carriers  and owner-operators.
FMCSA has responsibility for ensuring compliance by trucking and motor  coach companies with drug testing requirements. FMCSA does so through  safety audits of new entrants and compliance reviews of existing  companies—both of which cover compliance with all types of safety  regulations, including drug and alcohol testing. Safety audits are required  for all new entrants to the trucking industry and are opportunities for  FMCSA to provide educational and technical assistance to new carriers,  explain carriers’ responsibilities under the federal regulations, and check  for operational deficiencies. In excess of 40,000 safety audits were  conducted in 2006. Compliance reviews occur for four reasons: (1) poor  carrier safety record in SafeStat, (2) a fatal accident, (3) a complaint  against the carrier or driver, or (4) a follow-up investigation after  violations. In 2006, FMCSA and state investigators conducted more than  15,000 compliance reviews. In addition to the audits and compliance  reviews, FMCSA also makes educational materials about drug testing  available on its Web site.
section_title: FMCSA Faces Two Key Challenges in Ensuring Drug Testing Programs Are in Place
paragraphs: FMCSA’s efforts to ensure that commercial motor carriers have drug  testing programs in place face two key challenges: limited compliance by  carriers and others involved in the process, and limitations in the  mechanisms FMCSA uses to ensure that drug testing programs are in  place.
subsections: section_title: Compliance by Carriers and Others Is in Question
paragraphs: Our reviews of FMCSA data, visits to individual carriers, and discussions  with industry associations indicate that carriers, particularly small carriers  and owner-operators, are often not in compliance with the drug testing  regulations, resulting in the possibility that many drivers are not being  tested, which increases the potential for drivers who use illegal substances  to continue operating in safety-sensitive positions. According to FMCSA  data, more than 70 percent of compliance reviews conducted since 2001  and more than 40 percent of safety audits conducted since 2003 found  violations of drug testing regulations. The most frequently cited violation  found in new entrant safety audits, which was found in 30 percent of  safety audits conducted since 2003, was that carriers had no drug testing  program at all. The most frequently cited drug testing violations in  compliance reviews are that drivers operating in safety-sensitive positions  have not successfully passed a preemployment drug test, or that drivers  are not being tested at all (see fig. 2). About 1 percent of compliance  reviews per year find carriers that have allowed drivers with a positive  drug test to continue to operate in safety-sensitive positions.
We saw similar problems in our field visits: in the two compliance reviews  and two new entrant safety audits we observed, two of the carriers, both  of which were small carriers, were not aware of the drug testing  requirements and did not have a drug testing program at all. For example,  a representative at one of the carriers we interviewed did not understand  the comprehensiveness of the drug testing regulations. The carrier had  hired owner-operators, who are enrolled in a random drug testing program  through a consortium/third-party administrator, but did not fully  understand its responsibility to obtain testing results and other  information from the consortium in which those owner-operators are  enrolled. Furthermore, for those carriers who use drivers on and off  throughout the year, there was confusion regarding how to include them  in random drug testing.
Compliance with drug testing regulations is particularly problematic for  owner-operators who are not hired by other companies. An owner- operator must follow the drug testing regulations and be in a drug testing  program just like all other drivers employed by motor carrier companies.
For example, an owner-operator is required to get a preemployment drug  test and to enroll in a consortium for random testing purposes. However, it  is unclear how an individual who is both the employer and the employee  would comply with drug testing regulations. For example, should the  owner-operator who participates in a consortium test positive, there is no  one who will remove the individual from safety-sensitive duties, and no  one beyond the owner-operator will be notified of the positive result.
Posing as commercial truck drivers needing DOT drug tests, our  investigators determined that there is also a lack of compliance with  protocols among entities that collect specimens for testing, resulting in the  ability for drivers to subvert a drug test. Twenty-two of the 24 collections  sites our investigators tested were not in compliance with some of the  protocols that guide the process of collecting a urine specimen. For  example, employees at 10 sites failed to ask the investigator to empty his  pants pockets and display items to ensure no items were present that  could be used to adulterate the specimen. One employee who did ask the  investigator to empty his pockets did not verify that all of his pockets were  empty, allowing the investigator to bring an adulterant into the collection  area by hiding it in his back pocket.
section_title: Mechanisms for Checking Compliance Have Limitations
paragraphs: While almost all compliance reviews and safety audits test compliance  with drug and alcohol testing regulations, these activities have several  limitations and gaps in how effectively they can identify and correct poor  compliance.
Most carriers are not reviewed. Safety audits began in 2003, and since  these audits are targeted at new entrants, they do not affect companies in  business earlier than 2003. FMCSA compliance reviews only reach  approximately 2 percent of carriers each year. Owner-operators and small  carriers are less likely than larger companies to be selected for a  compliance review. Several associations told us that small carriers may be  less likely to comply with the drug testing regulations because they may  have less understanding of their responsibilities, and because they have  less incentive to comply, given the rarity in which they will be visited by  FMCSA or state investigators.
Oversight of service agents is lacking. Except in the case of specific  allegations or complaints, FMCSA investigators do not visit or audit  collection sites or any other service agents employed by the carrier to  observe procedures and enforce compliance with drug testing  requirements. FMCSA has a limited number of people to oversee the  potentially tens of thousands of sites that can be used to collect urine for  DOT drug testing. Collection sites can be located anywhere—for example,  a portable toilet or any toilet in a clinic, hospital, or office building—and  can operate during differing hours. Few carriers conduct regular oversight  of the service agents they employ. One large carrier with whom we spoke  tests and verifies that the collection sites it uses are in compliance.  Smaller carriers are less likely to conduct such oversight, given their more  limited resources. Representatives from a third-party administrator with  whom we spoke told us that it observes some of the collection sites it  uses, sometimes at a client’s request. If significant problems are found,  representatives told us they alert the carriers to discontinue use of that  collection site. In addition, representatives told us that some major  collection companies internally audit their own sites to ensure the sites  comply with all requirements.
FMCSA conducts enforcement, but enforcement actions on service  agents are limited. Although not all violations result in enforcement  actions, FMCSA can use civil penalties, compliance orders, and out-of- service orders to enforce carriers’ compliance with drug testing  requirements. During safety audits of new entrants, FMCSA typically does  not assess fines against the carrier for noncompliance, since the purpose  of these audits is to educate and inform to encourage compliance. The  result of a safety audit is a list of recommendations for corrective action  and a requirement to provide documentation that corrective action was  taken. FMCSA does not believe it has the authority to levy civil penalties  on service agents. If a service agent is found to be out of compliance,  FMCSA officials told us that at most, they can only fine the carrier that  uses the service agent—not the service agent itself. Several carrier and  drug testing industry associations we interviewed also commented that  lack of enforcement of the drug testing requirements against service  agents, particularly collection sites, is a problem. FMCSA and ODAPC can  initiate a process to disqualify service agents from participating in  activities related to DOT drug testing programs, known as a Public Interest  Exclusion (PIE), in cases of serious noncompliance. While a number of  PIEs have been initiated, no PIE has been completed or formally issued.  Typically, the service agent has either corrected the noncompliance or  gone out of business before the PIE could be completed.
There is limited proactive outreach to carriers, service agents, and  drivers. While new entrant safety audits are an important tool for  educating and informing new carriers, these audits typically do not occur  until after a carrier has been operating for 9 to 18 months. New carriers  receive little information about drug testing requirements when they  register. When a new carrier applies for a DOT number, the application  includes a question in which the carrier must confirm whether it  understands its responsibilities related to drug and alcohol testing.  However, FMCSA does not provide any educational information on drug  testing when it approves the application. The carrier must seek out  information on the regulations and other responsibilities. The FMCSA and  ODAPC Web sites provide substantial educational information on drug  testing responsibilities to carriers, service agents, and drivers. An official  from FMCSA told us that its Web site may not effectively reach carriers  and drivers, and that there is a need to be more proactive in disseminating  information on the drug testing program.
Options that we have identified to address these limitations include    providing more information to carriers, service agents, and drivers when  they enter the industry, and publicizing the materials available on the  FMCSA Web site;    encouraging carriers to do more to test and verify that the service agents  they use are in compliance with the requirements; and  increasing or expanding FMCSA’s oversight activities and enforcement  authority.
FMCSA’s fiscal year 2008 operating plan calls for improving the Web site  and better publicizing available information, and its Comprehensive Safety  Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) initiative includes plans to improve current  oversight. Our ongoing work will examine the advantages and  disadvantages of the various options in more detail.
section_title: Additional Challenges Threaten Integrity of the Drug Testing Process
paragraphs: Even in situations in which FMCSA is able to ensure that a carrier has a  sound framework in place for drug testing, there are additional challenges  that can affect the integrity of results for individual tests. These challenges  range from opportunities to subvert the test results to learning about past  instances in which applicants may have failed drug tests.
subsections: section_title: Subversion of Drug Tests Is Still Possible
paragraphs: Adulterating or diluting the urine sample or substituting synthetic urine or  drug-free urine is possible, even if carriers and service agents are in  perfect compliance with requirements. For example, our investigators  were able to successfully substitute synthetic urine at a collection site that  appeared to follow all DOT protocols. In most instances, DOT drug testing  protocols do not require directly observed collection, nor do they require a  thorough search for hidden subversion products. Drivers intent on  adulterating or substituting a urine specimen can conceal small vials in  socks or other undergarments, such as those shown in figure 3. Products  designed to dilute, cleanse, or substitute urine specimens are easily  obtained and brazenly marketed on Web sites. Other products—more than  400 in number—are used to adulterate urine samples. The sheer number of  these products, and the ease with which they are marketed and distributed  through the Internet, present formidable obstacles to the integrity of the  drug testing process.
Another method of substitution is having another person give the urine  specimen instead of the driver. Collection sites are required to identify the  driver by looking at a photo ID issued by the employer (other than in the  case of an owner-operator or other self-employed individual) or a federal,  state, or local government (e.g., a driver’s license). The protocols do not  require carriers to provide photographs or other identification of drivers to  collectors to validate the identification. For example, our investigators  successfully used bogus driver’s licenses to gain access to all 24 collection  sites—demonstrating that drug users could send someone to take a drug  test in their place using fake identification.
The extent to which subversion is occurring is unknown—and is  impossible to determine. SAMHSA officials with whom we met noted that  when adulterants work well and destroy the evidence of their presence,  they are undetectable by laboratories. DOT issued a Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking in 2005 to require specimen validity testing to test for the  presence of adulterants, and a final rule is expected in fall 2007. Similarly,  when urine samples are successfully substituted, the result is a negative  test result; therefore, no data exist on the extent to which such  substitution occurs. For example, our investigators adulterated or  substituted eight specimens in their investigation, and the laboratory was  not able to detect any of the adulterants or substitutes used.
One potential option to addressing this problem is to restrict the sale of  products that allow applicants to subvert tests. As we have previously  reported, several states have laws that prohibit the manufacture, sale, or  use of products intended to subvert drug tests, but these laws are difficult  to enforce. To our knowledge, very few individuals have been cited or  convicted for violating these laws. As we also reported, however, South  Carolina convicted individuals for marketing and selling masking  products: one who sold urine substitution kits over the Internet, and  another who advertised that his store carried products that are used to  pass drug tests by cleansing the system. However, the interstate nature of  the manufacture and sale of products intended to subvert a drug test  lessens the impact of state-based laws. Legislation that would have  prohibited the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment of such products  was introduced in Congress in 2005 and 2006, but was not enacted.
section_title: Current Testing Covers a Limited Number of Drugs and Amount of Time
paragraphs: Even if drivers submit legitimate, unadulterated urine samples, the current  testing regimen has certain limitations.
Drivers may misuse substances other than the five being tested.
Drivers who use illegal substances, such as ecstasy, or misuse legal  substances, such as prescription medication containing oxycodone and  other synthetic opiates, can go unidentified by the drug tests, although the  use of these other substances can impair the ability of these drivers to  operate in a safety-sensitive position. In addition, the use, and misuse, of  prescription drugs may also be a problem.
Test detects drug use only within the past few days. The urine test  detects drugs used by the driver within the past several days (range of 1 to  5 days). This is a particular concern for preemployment testing, according  to carriers with whom we spoke, since a habitual user can refrain from  drug use for several days before the test in order to test negative.
Utilizing other types of tests, such as hair tests, as well as testing for other  types of drugs, have been proposed for dealing with these limitations. Hair  tests can detect long-term and habitual drug use and representatives from  several associations we interviewed told us that hair tests are, therefore,  more suitable for preemployment purposes. In fact, some motor carriers  supplement the DOT test with these alternative tests, and some carriers  also test for additional drugs. One large carrier we interviewed uses hair  tests to complement the DOT-regulated urine test and found higher rates  of drug use in the hair test (approximately 8 percent compared with 2 to 3  percent for urine tests on the same individuals). However, union  representatives with whom we spoke are not in favor of carriers utilizing  alternative tests in addition to DOT-regulated tests, because doing so  creates multiple standards throughout the industry that their members  have to comply with. In addition, hair testing is not effective at detecting  current or very recent drug use, and the test is also more expensive than  urine testing. Our ongoing work will further analyze the pros and cons of  these options.
section_title: Information about Past Test Failures Is Limited
paragraphs: DOT regulations require that an employer, in addition to testing an  applicant and receiving a negative result, also inquire about a prospective  driver’s drug test history by contacting the driver’s recent employers listed  on the employment application. Representatives from several motor  carriers with whom we met told us that drivers’ applications are often  incomplete. In addition, it is easy for drivers to simply omit any previous  employer for which they tested positive or any past preemployment test  that was positive. Such drivers can remain drug-free for a period of time  leading up to their next preemployment test, get a negative result, and get  hired—without their new employer knowing about any past positive drug  tests and without having gone through the required return-to-duty process.
Various options have been suggested for dealing with this issue, and in  particular, many in the industry have proposed developing a national  reporting requirement for past positive drug tests. As with the other types  of options that we have previously discussed, our ongoing work will  analyze the pros and cons of these improvements. According to a DOT  official with whom we met, FMCSA is considering implementing a central  repository containing national drug and alcohol testing results to which  carriers would have access, but its timeline is uncertain.
According to DOT, several states already require some form of information  sharing on drivers’ past positive drug tests, though implementation varies  by state. For example, Oregon requires the medical review officer to  report positive results to the state, while Texas requires carriers to report  positive test results. Furthermore, there is variation on what states do with  such information that is collected. For example, in North Carolina and  Washington, positive drug test results will disqualify drivers until they  complete the return-to-duty process, while in other states it is unclear  whether the information is being utilized at all.
section_title: Our Future Work Will Focus on Options to Address Challenges
paragraphs: Our future work, which we expect to complete in May 2008, will provide  more definitive information about many of the matters covered in my  statement today. This information will include more detailed information  about FMCSA’s enforcement activities related to the drug testing  regulations. Our report in May 2008 will also focus on the various options  that have been proposed to address the challenges and problems we have  discussed today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Subcommittee might have.
For further information on this statement, please contact Katherine  Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this  testimony were Andrew Von Ah, Assistant Director; Andrea Chinchilla;  Paul Desaulniers; Michelle Everett; Bert Japikse; Sara Ann Moessbauer;  John Ryan; Sandra Sokol; Stan Stenersen; and Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.