FMCSR 172.403(f): RAM Package Labels — Q&A

No. According to our inspection records, 172.403(f) citations never result in an out-of-service order. Across all 3 citations in our database, 0 trucks were placed out of service, giving this violation a 0.0% OOS rate. This is significantly lower than the 31.4% average OOS rate across all FMCSR codes, and far below peer hazmat labeling violations like placarding infractions (75.1% OOS rate). Your truck will be cited and documented, but you will be able to continue operating.

This is a low-severity hazmat citation. Our inspection data shows only 3 all-time citations for 172.403(f), making it the #2551 out of 3,036 FMCSR codes by citation volume. In the same hazmat category, related violations like general loading/unloading infractions (177.834A-HMC) generate 3,954 citations with a 99.2% OOS rate, and placarding violations (177.817(a)) see 2,274 citations with 75.1% OOS rate. The stark difference in enforcement volume and OOS severity indicates 172.403(f) is treated as a minor documentation or labeling error rather than a critical safety defect.

No—enforcement is extremely rare. Our 13 million+ inspection records show zero citations for 172.403(f) in the last 12 months and zero in the last 90 days. The only 3 citations on record are historical. This suggests either the violation is uncommon in real-world operations, or inspectors seldom cite it compared to other hazmat label and placard violations. If you've been cited, you're part of a very small group.

Immediate steps:

1. Document the citation — record the inspector's name, date, location, and specific findings.
2. Inspect your RAM package labels — ensure labels are correctly positioned on opposite sides of the package per regulation.
3. Review your shipper paperwork — confirm the hazmat declaration matches the package labeling.
4. Request clarification — if unsure which side placement is incorrect, contact your dispatcher or hazmat coordinator.
5. File within 30 days — if you believe the citation is inaccurate, submit a DataQs (FMCSA Data Quality System) request to contest the record.

Since this is not an OOS violation, you can operate while correcting the issue.

Yes. If you believe the citation is factually incorrect—for example, the inspector misidentified label placement or your package was properly labeled—you can submit a DataQs request within 30 days of the violation. DataQs allows drivers and carriers to challenge accuracy and completeness of roadside inspection records. You'll need supporting evidence (photos, shipper documentation, or inspection procedures) that prove the label was compliant. Given the rarity of this citation (only 3 all-time), success may depend on clear documentation that label placement was correct.

Our inspection database records only 3 all-time citations for 172.403(f), so geographic concentration is limited. The carriers cited were TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC (USDOT 177323), MARUTI NANDAN TRANSPORTATION AND COURRIER SERVICES (USDOT 2890726), and BASIN PUMP DOWN SERVICES LLC (USDOT 3065469), each with 1 citation. No state or region dominates enforcement due to the extremely low volume. This suggests 172.403(f) is either a specialized violation tied to specific hazmat shipments or simply not a common roadside finding.

A Ford was the only vehicle make cited for 172.403(f) in our records (1 citation). This is not meaningful data given the total of only 3 citations ever recorded. The violation appears independent of vehicle type and more likely reflects the hazmat cargo and labeling practices of the operator.

Under FMCSA's Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, hazmat violations like 172.403(f) can impact both the driver and the carrier, depending on who bore responsibility for the violation. If the driver accepted and transported the package with incorrect label placement, the citation may be assigned to the driver's record. If the carrier's shipper or loading procedures caused the error, it typically flows to the carrier. The citation will appear in both the driver's and carrier's inspection history, but the investigative findings will indicate primary responsibility.