FMCSR 393.24(b): Projecting Load Lighting & Marking Q&A

No. Our inspection records show 0% of 393.24(b) citations result in out-of-service status. Across all 198 citations in our database for this code, 100% were documented but none triggered an OOS placement. This is significantly lower than the all-FMCSR average OOS rate of 31.4%. You won't be removed from service, but you must correct the lighting or marking deficiency on the projecting load before resuming operations.

This violation carries a CSA severity weight of 3, which means it contributes 3 points per citation within a 30-day rolling window. If you receive multiple citations for the same or related violations in 30 days, the points stack. The weight of 3 reflects mid-range severity in the maintenance category—more serious than minor defects but less severe than brake or lighting system failures.

Immediate steps: (1) Stop the vehicle and inspect all loads projecting beyond the sides or rear. (2) Verify that all projecting cargo has proper lighting—typically reflective markers, clearance lights, or trailer lights as applicable. (3) Ensure marking (flags, tape, or signage) is visible and complies with DOT standards. (4) Correct any deficiencies before moving the vehicle. (5) Document your repairs with photos. (6) Request re-inspection if the citation was issued during a roadside stop.

No—it's relatively uncommon and low-enforcement. Across our 13M+ inspections, 393.24(b) ranks #1216 out of 3,036 FMCSR codes by citation volume, with only 198 all-time citations. Compare this to 393.9(a) (inoperable required lamps), which has 660,737 citations and a 15.4% OOS rate, or 393.11 (lighting devices/reflectors) with 179,734 citations. Your violation is a niche defect, not a systemic lighting problem.

Yes, you can initiate a DataQs (Driver Record Inspection) challenge through FMCSA's online portal. Your case is strongest if the marking or lighting was compliant at the time of inspection (e.g., you have photos or witness testimony) or if the inspector misidentified the cargo as projecting. Equipment-based citations are contestable if you can prove proper lighting was installed and functional. Documentation disputes (missing records) are harder to overturn; focus on objective evidence of compliance.

Enforcement is historically rare and has dropped to zero. Our data shows 0 citations in the last 90 days and 0 in the last 12 months, despite 198 all-time on record. This suggests inspectors cite it infrequently—perhaps because most carriers avoid the violation or because roadside inspections deprioritize projecting-load checks. The rarity doesn't make the rule unimportant; it means fewer drivers encounter it.

Our all-time data shows Jorge L Triana (USDOT 1883608) with 4 citations, and RXO Express LLC (USDOT 460019) with 3. By vehicle make, Freightliner (20 citations) and Volvo (10 citations) appear most often, followed by Peterbilt (7) and Kenworth (7). This likely reflects fleet size and equipment type rather than safety performance; heavier trucks with flatbeds or extendable trailers carry projecting loads more frequently.

Both. The violation appears on your driver record (Driver Safety and Fitness Improvement Category, or BASICS) and your carrier's record (carrier BASICS), since it involves a vehicle operation and maintenance issue under your and the company's responsibility. FMCSA tracks the defect at the vehicle level too. A single citation affects your CSA score and the carrier's, though the impact is modest given the low severity weight and enforcement volume.