Freightwaves Interview Part 3: ELD Integrity, Hair Drug Testing & Industry Reform

The Trucking Alliance partnered with Freightwaves for a panel discussion on trucking safety, regulations, and more. In this three-part series, the panel discusses its goals for 2026 and beyond.

The third part focuses on the FMCSA withdrawing non-compliant Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) and why third-party certification is the need of the hour. The panelists also advocated for hair drug testing, given that it is up to 14x more effective than urinalysis.

With an increase in the number of high-profile trucking accidents catching the public’s attention, the Trucking Alliance emphasizes the importance of safe and professional driving standards, the expansion of federal drug testing requirements, and the need for comprehensive industry-wide reforms.

Click this link for the full roundtable discussion.

JOHN KINGSTON: One of the more interesting recent crackdowns—which I didn’t see coming because it has been a non-issue for years—is the FMCSA’s withdrawal of non-compliant ELDs. I didn’t fully grasp how important the industry thought this was. Some of these sub-par ELDs were allowing carriers to violate hours-of-service rules, contributing to negative conditions for drivers and potentially undercutting the market on rates. Has this recent wave of ELD revocations been a welcome development? What kind of safety or capacity impact do you think it will have?

LANE KIDD: It is absolutely a compliance issue. Long after Congress mandated ELDs in 2012, they still weren’t operational by 2016. The FMCSA eventually decided that instead of certifying every single manufacturer, they would allow companies to self-certify on the honor system. Initially, compliance ratios looked great, and violations were down. However, over a three-to-four-year period, we saw instances where—according to one source—88,000 violations occurred simply because an ELD could not transmit its data to an officer at the roadside.

That is a correctable problem. The FMCSA has now revoked about 300 ELDs, but there are still too many unverified devices on the market. The FMCSA needs to take a bold step: require ELD manufacturers to contract with independent, third-party certification labs and go through a formal verification process to prove their devices actually work. Right now, a well-meaning driver can buy an ELD off the rack at a truck stop, only to end up with an unintentional violation because the device fails. We are going to strongly encourage the FMCSA to revisit this issue and mandate independent certification.

JOHN KINGSTON: How successful do you think you will be with that push? The FMCSA already seems willing to toss out failing ELDs. Does that give you hope they will codify a certification process?

LANE KIDD: Yes. Even if it is not immediately codified, I believe the FMCSA is, for the first time in recent memory, willing to contract with third-party providers. For years, the agency felt it had to handle certification internally or through the Volpe Center. Now, there is a recognition that the private sector often has better, more efficient mechanisms. If they agree to use independent labs, it will create a much smoother process. Right now, the agency is reacting to bad devices; by requiring objective certification, we can become proactive and prevent these issues entirely.

STEVE WILLIAMS: This is a perfect example of how regulations evolve. We were happy to get the ELD mandate passed, but we’ve learned that self-certification didn’t work the way we hoped. It will take time to close all the loopholes. Overarching all of this is a core philosophy of the Trucking Alliance: operating a commercial motor vehicle is a privilege, and with that privilege comes additional responsibility. It is not an entitlement. Embracing that vision is strategic for our individual companies, for the industry, and for the nation.

We are at a tipping point. Either highway safety is going to get significantly worse—which I don’t believe will happen because we will prevail on these issues—or we seize this opportunity to make meaningful changes. The Alliance views itself as a change agent advocating for these radical, necessary safety reforms because they are the right thing to do for the long term.

JOHN KINGSTON: Let’s discuss an issue where the Alliance has been the primary leader for a long time: hair testing for drugs. It always seems to be two steps forward, one step back. Are we at the point where this might finally become regulation? Furthermore, with recreational marijuana now legal in many states, is it going to be tougher to maintain a zero-tolerance policy?

LANE KIDD: Marijuana use for recreation is entirely different from marijuana use in a safety-sensitive profession where you are putting the public at risk. There are numerous studies detailing how marijuana impairs driving and alertness. It may not be as acute as fentanyl, but neither belongs in the system of a driver operating an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer. Maintaining that prohibition will not be a heavy lift.

Regarding hair testing, I recently shared this simple comparison with an FMCSA official: How does it look to the general public that the Department of Transportation will disqualify a truck driver who fails a urine test, but will not disqualify a driver who fails a hair test—even though the hair test is up to 14 times more effective at identifying drug use? The industry cannot logically allow the administration to continue dragging its feet. The hair testing guidelines were moving through the Department of Health and Human Services under the first Trump administration, but they were halted under the Biden administration. Now, agencies are talking about making something happen again. While I don’t expect a formal rulemaking from HHS anytime soon, we are looking at other avenues that would allow the FMCSA to recognize hair testing today and permit carriers to submit those positive results to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.

JOHN KINGSTON: Has the Clearinghouse been as impactful as you thought it would be? You were one of the leaders pushing for its creation. What is your review of it several years later?

GREER WOODRUFF: First, let me be clear: the intention of the Clearinghouse was never to eliminate capacity. Drivers who test positive can go through a return-to-duty process, and we encourage them to complete that process and return to driving abstinent from drugs and alcohol.

That being said, the Clearinghouse has been hugely successful in identifying drug and alcohol use via urine tests and removing those drivers from service until they complete the required substance abuse programs. Where the system is currently deficient is exactly what Lane mentioned: many Alliance carriers conduct hair testing and disqualify drivers who test positive, but we currently have no legal mechanism to report those positive hair tests to the Clearinghouse. Consequently, those drivers simply go to work for another carrier, continuing their drug use and putting the new carrier and the motoring public at severe risk. We need a mechanism to get those positive hair test results into the Clearinghouse so other employers are aware of the risk.

LANE KIDD: If you look at our agenda, we have a bold proposal regarding this. Currently, a driver operating a heavy tractor-trailer must pass a drug test. However, there are countless commercial drivers operating smaller panel trucks, delivery vans, and straight trucks who pose the exact same risk to the public but are not required to be tested. Anecdotally, we are finding that drivers who fail hair or urine tests simply drop down in classification to drive unregulated delivery trucks to avoid testing. Our position is simple: if you are a for-hire commercial truck driver, regardless of the size of the vehicle, you should be required to pass a drug test.

BRETT SANT: To add one more point on the effectiveness of the Clearinghouse: it has created a tremendous amount of transparency and visibility into driver compliance. Because all DOT test results go into one centralized system, it creates strict accountability for motor carriers to ensure they are following the rules faithfully and checking the three-year history of every new hire. In that regard, it has been a tremendous success.

JOHN KINGSTON: Let’s wrap up by looking ahead. If we are sitting here in December 2026, how many of these Alliance goals will be accomplished, and how many will still be aspirational?

LANE KIDD: I believe we will have a much more robust credentialing process for CDL training schools across the country. Secretary Duffy’s recent decision to revoke the privileges of roughly 3,000 underperforming schools indicates we will see better curriculums and stricter training standards.

GREER WOODRUFF: There are some very aspirational priorities on our agenda that won’t be solved overnight. We have to build consensus within the industry and with regulators, and some issues may require new legislation. There is a lot of heavy lifting ahead, but we are committed to finding the right avenues to get buy-in. Some initiatives will be completed quickly; others will take longer, but they are all worthy priorities that we are confident we will achieve.

BRETT SANT: The one thing all Alliance carriers have in common is our absolute alignment on making the roadways safer. We are championing these specific priorities because we can demonstrate that they will reduce the root causes of crashes. These are sensible, achievable reforms. They might not all be completed in the next 12 months, but they are all attainable and meaningful.

JOHN KINGSTON: With that, we are going to wrap up this great discussion with the leaders of the Trucking Alliance: Greer Woodruff of J.B. Hunt, Brett Sant of Knight-Swift Transportation, Steve Williams of Maverick USA and President of the Trucking Alliance, and Lane Kidd, Managing Director of the Trucking Alliance. I’ve been your host, John Kingston. Thanks for joining us.