What 173.24(c) means in plain language
When you transport hazardous materials, the Department of Transportation requires that all packaging meet specific safety standards outlined in the Hazardous Materials Regulations. These rules exist because improper containers can leak, rupture, or fail during transit—putting you, other drivers, and the public at risk.
Code 173.24(c) flags situations where a driver or carrier is using packaging that doesn't comply with those authorized standards. This might mean the container is the wrong type for the material inside, lacks proper interior protection, fails to meet DOT specifications for strength or durability, or hasn't been manufactured to the certified design. It's not about the label or placard on the outside—it's about whether the actual package itself is built to safely contain what's in it.
If an inspector finds unauthorized packaging, they're looking at a fundamental safety failure: the container itself cannot be trusted to keep hazmat contained. That's why this citation carries real weight, even though the all-time volume remains relatively low.
What our enforcement data actually shows
Across our 13 million roadside inspection records, we've recorded 95 all-time citations for 173.24(c)—ranking it #1434 out of 3,036 FMCSR codes by citation frequency. In the last 12 months and last 90 days, our database shows zero citations, indicating this violation is uncommon in current enforcement activity.
When 173.24(c) is cited, however, the consequences are severe. Our data shows a 50.5% out-of-service rate—meaning roughly one in every two drivers cited for this violation was placed out of service on the spot. That's 19.1 percentage points above the all-FMCSR average OOS rate of 31.4%. This disparity underscores how seriously DOT takes hazmat packaging integrity. Out of 95 total citations, 48 resulted in an out-of-service placement, while 47 did not.
The rarity of this citation in recent months shouldn't be read as a green light. Rather, it suggests most carriers and drivers have aligned their practices with DOT packaging standards. When violations do surface, they trigger immediate roadside intervention.
Who gets cited most
Our inspection records don't break down these 95 citations by state in our current dataset snapshot, so we cannot identify a top-three state list with confidence. However, we can confirm carrier patterns: Emergency Roadside Service Inc (USDOT 1594714) leads with 4 citations, followed by five carriers tied at 2 citations each—Fletes Internacionales Nayros SA de CV, Iowa Tanklines Inc, Four Corners Towing Inc, Oscar Guillermo Juraidini Silva, and Riley Brothers Inc. These numbers reflect our all-time database and should inform fleet safety managers building hazmat compliance programs, but they do not imply negligence; rather, they show which operations have encountered this specific violation.
Vehicle makes in our dataset reveal that Ford units account for 14 of the 95 citations—the largest share. Kenworth and other makes (9 each), Freightliner (5), and RAM (4) round out the top makes cited. This distribution likely reflects overall fleet composition in hazmat transport rather than inherent vehicle defects.
How severe is this compared to similar codes
173.24(c) sits within the Hazardous Materials category alongside several peer violations. The comparison is striking:
177.834A-HMC (General loading/unloading hazmat) has been cited 3,954 times with a 99.2% OOS rate—far more frequent and nearly always resulting in roadside placement. 177.834(a) (also general loading/unloading hazmat) follows at 3,839 citations and 97.9% OOS rate. Both dwarf 173.24(c)'s volume and show even higher enforcement severity.
177.817(a) (Placarding violation) accounts for 2,274 citations with a 75.1% OOS rate—also more common and more frequently removed from service than 173.24(c). By contrast, 172.602(c)(1) (Maintenance/accessibility of Emergency Response information) has 1,464 citations but a 0.0% OOS rate, meaning inspectors cite it but rarely ground the vehicle.
The takeaway: unauthorized packaging (173.24(c)) is rarer than placarding or loading errors, but when cited, it's treated with near-equal severity to those more common violations. This reflects DOT's philosophy that packaging is non-negotiable—you either have the right container or you don't.
How to avoid it
Prevent 173.24(c) citations with these concrete, pre-trip actions:
-
Verify packaging specifications before loading. Before you accept any hazmat shipment, confirm that every container matches the DOT-authorized package design for that material class and hazard. Request the shipper's documentation proving certification. Do not assume a container is compliant based on appearance.
-
Inspect container condition and labels. Check for signs the container has been repurposed or modified (dents, patches, replaced bungs, or non-original seals). Unauthorized repairs or modifications can disqualify otherwise-certified packaging. Ensure labels and certifications are legible and match the contents.
-
Know which vehicles carry hazmat in your fleet. Our data shows Ford, Kenworth, and Freightliner units have been cited most; this is likely a volume issue, but ensure all vehicles rated to carry hazmat undergo rigorous pre-trip hazmat-specific inspections—not just brake or light checks.
-
Train on shipper responsibility. Understand that shippers are legally responsible for providing proper packaging, but you are responsible for refusing loads in improper containers. If a shipper pressures you to move hazmat in non-compliant packaging, report it to your safety manager and DOT.
-
Use DOT-published reference materials. Keep a current copy of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 172–180) or a condensed hazmat shipping guide in your cab. Reference it when in doubt about packaging before you load.
-
Request written certification from your carrier or shipper. If your company provides hazmat loads, ensure dispatchers provide written confirmation that packaging meets DOT standards. Create a simple pre-load checklist and photograph packaging before accepting the load.
The zero citations in the last 90 days suggest the market is moving toward compliance. Don't be the exception: treat packaging authorization as non-negotiable.