FMCSR 395.26(b): ELD Data Recording Violations Explained

Almost certainly not. Across all 7,638 all-time citations for 395.26(b) in our inspection records, only 5 resulted in an out-of-service order — an OOS rate of just 0.1%. The code is flagged as OOS-ineligible, meaning inspectors have no regulatory basis to park your truck solely for this violation. For context, the average OOS rate across all FMCSR codes is 31.4%, so 395.26(b) sits far below that threshold. You'll likely drive away from the inspection, but the citation still lands on your carrier's CSA record and can draw scrutiny in future audits.

No severity weight value is available in our data for 395.26(b), so a precise CSA point figure cannot be stated here. What the data does confirm is that this is an Hours of Service BASIC violation, which means it affects the carrier's HOS BASIC score. Under FMCSA's SMS methodology, violations cited within the most recent 6 months receive a 3× time-weight multiplier, those in months 7–12 receive a 2× multiplier, and older violations receive a 1× multiplier. Because 395.26(b) has recorded 0 citations in the last 12 months, its active CSA impact on most carriers' current scores is minimal right now.

Take these steps right away:

1. Get a copy of the inspection report — the CVSA inspection form will list every violation written up, not just 395.26(b).
2. Check your ELD settings — this violation means the device failed to automatically record required data elements. Confirm firmware is current and the unit is functioning correctly before your next dispatch.
3. Notify your safety department immediately — the citation attaches to the carrier's DOT number, so your fleet manager needs to know the same day.
4. Review co-inspection patterns — our records show this citation frequently appears alongside other ELD-related codes, so a full ELD audit is warranted.
5. Preserve all ELD logs from the inspection period in case you pursue a DataQs challenge.

It's relatively low-severity compared to its HOS peers. Our inspection records rank 395.26(b) at #271 out of 3,036 FMCSR codes by citation volume, with 7,638 all-time citations. Peer codes in the same Hours of Service category carry far heavier OOS exposure: 395.8(a)(1) carries a 93.2% OOS rate and 395.8A1-HOSP sits at 92.9%, versus 395.26(b)'s 0.1%. The high-volume ELD form-and-manner code 395.24 has 106,486 citations compared to 395.26(b)'s 7,638, showing this specific failure mode is less common. The real risk isn't roadside parking — it's the signal it sends to FMCSA that your ELD compliance program has gaps.

Yes, you can submit a DataQs Request for Data Review (RDR) to challenge the citation. Because 395.26(b) is a documentation and equipment-configuration violation — not a straightforward observational finding — there is a meaningful basis to contest if the ELD was actually recording correctly and the inspector's determination was in error. To file, go to the FMCSA DataQs portal, attach your ELD malfunction logs, device certification records, and any diagnostic reports showing the unit was functioning properly at the time of inspection. If the challenge succeeds, the violation is removed from your SMS record. Keep in mind that only incorrect data gets removed; if the ELD genuinely failed to auto-record required elements, the citation will stand.

Our inspection database does not break down 395.26(b) citations by state in the current data snapshot, so specific state-level counts cannot be cited here. What the vehicle data does show is that Freightliner (FRHT) units account for 1,158 of the 7,638 all-time citations — the most of any make — followed by Utility trailers (461) and Volvo (404). High-volume enforcement of ELD codes generally tracks with states that run large-scale fixed inspection stations and weigh-in-motion corridors, but state-specific numbers for this code are not available in the current dataset.

Fix it before your next trip. While the 0.1% OOS rate means you weren't parked roadside, an unresolved ELD auto-recording failure puts every subsequent log at risk of additional violations. Notably, our records show 0 citations in the last 90 days and 0 in the last 12 months, which suggests enforcement of this specific sub-requirement has gone quiet recently — but that can shift if FMCSA or state agencies re-prioritize ELD technical compliance. A functioning ELD is also your primary defense in any future audit or DataQs dispute, so restoring correct auto-recording capability protects the carrier's entire HOS compliance posture, not just this one citation.

This one lands on the carrier, not the driver. The regulation is written as a motor carrier obligation — the label itself reads 'motor carrier failed to ensure' the ELD recorded required data elements. In FMCSA's CSA Safety Measurement System, carrier-assigned violations affect the carrier's HOS BASIC score tied to their DOT number. The driver is not the responsible party under 395.26(b) and the violation does not attach to the driver's PSP (Pre-Employment Screening Program) record. Fleet managers should treat citations against this code as a systemic ELD maintenance and configuration issue, not a driver behavior issue.