How far back can an inspector look for past violations to cite 396.9(d)(2), failure to correct defects noted on previous inspection report. An inspector cited for failure to have current proof of annual inspection, 396.17(c) during a Lv I roadside inspection on 10/16/2018. The same veh. was subject to another roadside Lv I on 10/28/2020, by another jurisdiction, where no 396.17(c) violation was cited. A third jurisdiction conducted a Lv I roadside inspection on 08/03/2021 and we were currently in violation of 396.17(c). FMCSA only requires motor carriers to maintain copies of roadside inspections for one year. SMS only uses a running two year time frame for determining each BASIC percentages. If the motor carrier, signed that the violation was corrected and a roadside inspection occurred between the latest and ref. inspection for failure to correct, which did not cite the violation ref. for failure to correct, isn't either the "no cite" inspection and/or the carrier's signature stating the violation was corrected, a greater burden of proof that a violation was corrected, then an inspector who goes back 2 years 9 months to find a cited violation?

There needs to be time frame limit on past violations for citing 396.9(d)(2). During carrier investigations, FMCSA normally only looks one year to the rear and as stated previously, the SMS only uses a running two year window.

If inspectors can go beyond a previous "no-cite" inspection, then anytime the same lamp and/or a cargo securement violation is found or any other veh violations, then an inspector can theoretically cite 396.9(d)(2)

Set a timeframe window of no more than two years for failure to correct past violations and only if the same CMV has not had a more recent "no-cite" inspection, covering the same inspection item(s).

Discussion that the initial violation could be repaired and then re-occur with no way to know roadside. Industry advised that it is not a widespread issue and time frame is not a good idea. It was agreed that the violation example submitted was more of a one-off rather than a widespread issue and possibly a training issue for that state/individual. No further action taken, item closed.