FMCSR 173.301(b) Citations: Enforcement Data & Driver Guide

No. Across our inspection records, 173.301(b) has never resulted in an out-of-service placement. All 5 all-time citations in our database were issued without an OOS order, giving this violation a 0.0% OOS rate.

This is dramatically lower than the all-FMCSR average of 31.4%, and far below peer hazmat codes like 177.834A-HMC (99.2% OOS) and 177.834(a) (97.9% OOS). You can continue operating while you address the citation.

173.301(b) is among the least enforced hazmat citations. Our database shows only 5 all-time citations, ranking it #2406 of 3,036 FMCSR codes—placing it in the bottom 20% by enforcement frequency.

Most critically, it carries a 0.0% OOS rate versus peer hazmat codes with severe consequences: 177.834A-HMC (99.2% OOS), 177.834(a) (97.9% OOS), and 177.817(a) (75.1% OOS). The rarity and low severity suggest this is a technical or documentation-level violation, not an immediate safety shutdown.

1. Request the full citation details. Understand exactly what regulation section the inspector cited and what condition triggered it.
2. Document the current state. Take photos or notes of the vehicle/equipment condition at the time of citation.
3. Review your records. Check maintenance logs, manifests, or placarding documentation if applicable to the violation.
4. Consult your carrier's safety manager. They may have specific remediation steps for your company's hazmat program.
5. File a DataQs challenge if warranted. If you believe the citation is factually inaccurate or not supported by evidence, the FMCSA's Roadside Data Quality System allows formal contestation.
6. Track the citation status. Monitor CSA updates to ensure the violation posts correctly to your carrier's safety record.

No. Our inspection records show zero citations for 173.301(b) in the last 12 months and zero in the last 90 days. The only 5 citations on record are historical, with no recent enforcement trend.

This near-zero activity suggests either the violation is extremely rare in practice, regulations around it have changed, or inspectors rarely encounter the specific condition this code addresses. There is no indication of increased enforcement pressure.

Our database shows 5 all-time citations, each issued to a different carrier: American Compressed Gases Inc (USDOT 102217), Georgia Power Company (USDOT 165307), Boling Concrete Construction Inc (USDOT 505982), Chili Gas Inc (USDOT 1830791), and Gas Plus (USDOT 3505049).

No carrier appears more than once, indicating this violation is scattered across the industry rather than concentrated among specific operators. This supports the pattern of 173.301(b) being rare and idiosyncratic.

Yes. The FMCSA's Roadside Data Quality (DataQs) system allows drivers and carriers to formally challenge citations they believe are factually inaccurate, unsupported by evidence, or inconsistent with the regulation.

To contest: submit your challenge through the DataQs portal within the established timeframe, providing documentation (photos, maintenance records, manifests, or witness statements) that refutes the citation. FMCSA reviewers will assess whether the inspector's finding was justified. Success depends on the strength of your evidence and whether the violation was truly equipment-based or a documentation/recordkeeping issue.

FMCSA violations typically post to both the driver and the carrier's safety record under the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program. However, the severity varies based on the violation type: equipment defects usually carry higher driver impact, while operational or compliance violations may weight more heavily on the carrier.

Given 173.301(b)'s rarity and 0.0% OOS rate, the CSA point impact is likely minimal. Request your carrier's safety team or the FMCSA to clarify which BASICs (safety categories) this specific code affects for your record.

Across our 13 million+ inspection records, the 5 all-time 173.301(b) citations were spread across six different vehicle makes: Freightliner, GMC, Great Dane, Hino, Peterbilt, and Volvo—with only one citation per make.

This distribution suggests no particular truck type is at risk. The violation appears independent of vehicle brand or configuration, further supporting that 173.301(b) is a rare, context-specific finding rather than a systemic defect pattern.