Trucker screens focus of two bills

Companion bills introduced Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representative and U.S. Senate would close a loophole in federal law and allow trucking companies to share reports on drivers who fail hair testing as part of employee drug screenings.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. implemented hair testing as part of its employee drug screening process more than seven years ago. Data reported by the company suggest that hair testing is superior to urinalysis, which is currently the only form of screening recognized by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Transportation.

Under current law, failed pre-employment tests are not shareable with other companies in the industry, meaning a driver denied employment at J.B. Hunt could wind up on the road working for a different company.

Rep. Rick Crawford and Sen. Mark Pryor, along with other members of the state’s congressional delegation, introduced the “Drug Free Commercial Driver Act of 2013,” asking that Health and Human Services and the Transportation Department begin recognizing hair testing.

J.B. Hunt, headquartered in Lowell, said it turned away more than 3,000 people as prospective drivers between May 2006 and February 2013 because of failed tests.

“We think there is sufficient facts and evidence that hair testing is superior to urine and having legislation to move this forward is beneficial,” said Greer Woodruff, vice president of safety and security at J.B. Hunt.

Federal legislation passed last year sets up a clearinghouse for transportation companies to report their drug testing results. If the bill introduced by Pryor, Crawford and others passes, it would amend the clearinghouse rules to include hair testing. Companies are not, however, required to use the method. Hair testing can detect drug use as far back as 90 days, while urine tests generally measure back no longer than 48 hours.

“This is all about trying to create a safe environment in the industry,” Crawford said. “It allows you to help identify individuals that are chronic drug users instead of relying on a two- or three-day snapshot.”

Crawford cited data from J.B. Hunt and Schneider National of Wisconsin as being instrumental in his decision to introduce the bill. Schneider National reports that since implementing hair testing in 2008, it turned away 1,925 drivers because of failed hair testing. Urine testing flagged only 168 of those drivers in the same five-year span, the company said.

Data collected on 3,221 prospective J.B. Hunt drivers who were flagged after hair testing between May 2006 and February 2013 show that only 90 of them failed urine tests.

Companies are currently required to conduct only urine tests. They can use hair testing to screen drivers, but they must also test the applicant’s urine.

Passage of the bill would allow companies to trim the costs associated with the testing. Industry estimates are that testing hair costs $90 per test and testing urine costs about $45 per test. In the instance of J.B. Hunt that could add up to millions saved over a number of years.

“Right now, our companies are saddled with duplicative drug-testing processes that are wasting their time and money,” Pryor said through a spokesman. “Our bill would give these companies flexibility so they have the freedom to choose what method works best for them.”

Critics, like Norita Taylor of the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association, said hair testing is viewed as “too costly, discriminates against certain ethnicities and is not relevant to random testing.” Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations, Arkansas Trucking Association and the Trucking Alliance, have voiced support for hair testing. Support from the state’s congressional delegation has been strong, and Lane Kidd of the Arkansas Trucking Association and Trucking Alliance said he anticipated few problems in getting the bill passed.

“I do feel confident we can get it passed,” Kidd said. “I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would oppose it.”

In 2009, Woodruff began actively meeting with government agency leaders and sharing J.B. Hunt’s testing results. While he said he was pleased to know that legislation was being introduced, he wasn’t yet ready to count it as a victory for hair testing.

“I’m not going to get too excited until I see hair testing accepted as an alternative test,” Woodruff said. “We want to see it implemented and have a positive impact on reducing serious accidents and injuries due to drivers under the influence.”