1. (a) Schedule. The complete operation of an official inspection station is the responsibility of the owner. Failure to comply with the appropriate provisions of 75 Pa.C.S. (relating to Vehicle Code) will be considered sufficient cause for suspension of inspection privileges. A violator is also subject to criminal prosecution.

   	Duration of Suspension
   Type of Violation	1st Violation	2nd Violation	3rd and Subsequent Violation
   (1) Category 1
   (i) Issuance or possession of altered, forged, stolen or counterfeit certification of inspection	1 year	Permanent
   (ii) Furnish, lend, give, sell or receive a certificate of inspection without inspection	1 year	Permanent
   (iii) Faulty inspection of equipment or parts	2 months	1 year	3 years
   (2) Category 2
   (i) Fraudulent recordkeeping	1 year	Permanent
   (ii) Improper recordkeeping	2 months	1 year	3 years
   (iii) Failure to verify registration, title, manufacturer’s statement of origin, financial responsibility information, or inspecting a vehicle with an expired registration or when valid proof of financial responsibility has not been submitted.	2 months	4 months	1 year
   (iv) Failure to affix certificate of inspection immediately upon successful completion of the inspection	2 months	4 months	1 year
   (v) Improperly assigning certificate of inspection	2 months	4 months	1 year
   (vi) Failure to produce records, certificates of inspection, signature cards, certificate of appointment or mechanic card upon demand by inspection station supervisor or authorized representative of the Department	2 months or until produced	6 months or until produced	1 year or until produced
   (vii) Improper certificate of inspection security	Warning	4 months	1 year
   (viii) Careless recordkeeping	Warning	4 months	6 months
   (3) Category 3
   (i) Inspection by mechanic with suspended, revoked, cancelled or recalled operating privilege	2 months	6 months	1 year
   (ii) Inspecting more than three motorcycles or two other vehicles per hour	4 months	6 months	1 year
   (iii) Inspection by uncertified mechanic	4 months	6 months	1 year
   (4) Category 4
   (i) Misstatement of fact	2 months	4 months	1 year
   (ii) Performing or indicating unnecessary repairs for the purpose of passing an inspection	4 months	6 months	1 year
   (iii) Performing repairs for the purpose of passing an inspection without vehicle owner authori-zation	4 months	6 months	1 year
   (iv) Unclean inspection area	2 months	4 months	6 months
   (v) Required tools or equip-ment missing or broken	Warning if tools are repaired or replaced; if not, suspension until tools are repaired or replaced	2 months or until tools are repaired or replaced, whichever is greater	6 months or until tools are repaired or replaced whichever is greater
   (vi) Bad check	Warning if amount due is paid within 10 days from date notified. If not, suspension until amount due is paid	2 months or until amount due is paid, whichever is greater	6 months or until amount due is paid, whichever is greater
   (vii) Failure to report discontinuance of business	1 year	3 years	Permanent
   (viii) Failure to notify the Department of changes of ownership, location or other changes affecting an official inspection station	4 months	6 months	1 year
   (ix) Failure to give a written receipt or work order to customer, or to list required information on work order	2 months	4 months	1 year
   (x) Failure to satisfy monetary penalties for violations of Chapter 177 (relating to emission inspec-tion program) within 90 days of notification	Suspension until amount due is paid	2 months or until amount due is paid, whichever is greater	6 months or until amount due is paid, whichever is greater

2. (b) Assignment of points. The Department will permit the station owner to consent to the acceptance of a point assessment for the station in lieu of suspension, if the station owner, manager, supervisor or other management level employe was without knowledge of the violation, and should not have known of the violation.

   1. (1) The station owner bears the burden of proving that it provided proper supervision of the employe who committed the violation, but that supervision could not have prevented the violation.
   2. (2) By accepting the assessment of points the station owner waives the right to appeal the Department’s determination in the case to a court of record. If the station owner refuses to accept the point assessment, the Department will issue the suspension indicated in this subchapter.

3. (c) Point determination. When offering a point assessment, in lieu of a suspension, the Department will calculate points in the following manner:

   1. (1) One point will be assessed for every 2 months of suspension which the Department would otherwise impose.
   2. (2) A point assessment will not exceed eight points for a single violation.
   3. (3) If an inspection station is currently serving a suspension for a violation of this chapter, no point assessment will be made. A subsequent violation which occurs while a current suspension is being served will result in a suspension that will run consecutively with the current suspension.

4. (d) Point suspension. The Department will suspend the privileges of an official inspection station for an accumulation of points whenever the station accumulates ten or more points.

   1. (1) The first occurrence of an accumulation of ten points or more shall result in a suspension for a period of 2 months for each point over nine points; the second occurrence of an accumulation of ten points or more shall result in a suspension for a period of 4 months for each point over nine points; the third occurrence of an accumulation of ten points or more shall result in a suspension for a period of 6 months for each point over nine points.
   2. (2) The fourth occurrence for an accumulation of ten or more points shall result in a permanent suspension.
   3. (3) Only suspensions issued as the result of an accumulation of points shall be counted in determining whether a suspension for point accumulation is a second, third or fourth suspension.
   4. (4) If the point record of a station has been reduced to zero, a subsequent accumulation of points that will result in the suspension of the station will be considered first, second, third and fourth suspensions.

5. (e) Restoration of suspensions. Stations and mechanics that have had their privilege to inspect suspended shall be restored as follows:

   1. (1) A station that has been suspended as a result of a point accumulation shall have its point total reduced to six points upon restoration.
   2. (2) Additional points assessed against the station since the last violation resulting in a suspension will be added to the point record unless the station has served an additional suspension under subsection (c)(3).
   3. (3) A certified inspection mechanic that has been suspended under this chapter will be restored at the termination of the suspension.
   4. (4) Prior to restoration, the station shall meet the reapplication requirements of § 175.52 (relating to reapplication) to ensure timely restoration.
6. (f) Removal of points. Points assessed against a station shall be removed at the rate of two points for each 12 consecutive months in which the station has not had additional violations charged against it that could result in additional points. The 12-month period starts at the date of the last violation resulting in points or from the date of restoration of a suspension resulting from an accumulation of points, whichever occurred last.
7. (g) Subsequent violations. Determination of second and subsequent violations is made on the basis of previous violations in the same category within a 3-year period.
8. (h) Multiple violations. In the case of multiple violations which are reviewed and considered at one Departmental hearing, the Department will impose separate penalties for each violation as required by the schedule. The Department may direct that a suspension be served concurrently. If the Department permits a station to accept points in lieu of a suspension, the points will be assigned for the more serious violation affecting each vehicle. Violations affecting more than one vehicle will be treated as separate violations.
9. (i) Sale of business. An inspection station may be sold, transferred or leased to a new owner, and an application for appointment will be considered while the station is suspended or restored pending an appeal unless sold, transferred or leased to a person affiliated with the station or related to the station owner.
10. (j) Confiscated materials. Certificates of inspection and records confiscated as the result of an investigation will be retained by the inspection station supervisor. Certificates of inspection, certificates of appointment, mechanic certification cards and records confiscated as the result of a suspension will be returned to the Department. The Department will refund 75% of the purchase price for certificates of inspection confiscated as the result of a suspension.

11. (k) Official documents. Whenever an inspection station or mechanic is suspended or cancelled, the Department may order the surrender, upon demand, to an Inspection Station Supervisor or authorized representative of the Department of any of the following items:

    1. (1) Inspection records.
    2. (2) A certificate of appointment.
    3. (3) Signature cards.
    4. (4) Unused certificates of inspection.
    5. (5) Unused monthly insert tabs.
    6. (6) A mechanic certification card.

Authority

The provisions of this § 175.51 amended under the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § § 4103, 4103(a), 4301, 4501, 4521, 4702 and 6103.

Source

The provisions of this § 175.51 adopted December 2, 1977, effective February 1, 1978, 7 Pa.B. 3499; amended October 29, 1982, effective February 1, 1983, 12 Pa.B. 3862; corrected November 12, 1982, effective February 1, 1983, 12 Pa.B. 3947; amended June 1, 1984, effective June 2, 1984, 14 Pa.B. 1874; amended June 6, 1986, effective July 1, 1986, 16 Pa.B. 2023; readopted December 2, 1988, effective December 3, 1988, 18 Pa.B. 5362; amended February 18, 1994, effective February 19, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 962; amended October 25, 2013, effective October 26, 2013, 43 Pa.B. 6349; corrected November 26, 2014, effective January 4, 2014, 44 Pa.B. 7442. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (369001) to (369008).

Notes of Decisions

Checks issued by service station which were drawn on accounts which had sufficient funds but were frozen by the IRS were ‘‘bad checks’’ and a proper basis upon which the service station’s certification as an official inspection station was suspended, since ‘‘bad checks’’ encompass any check which is uncollectible. Department of Transportation v. Phil Turner’s Service Centers, 593 A.2d 442 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).

Careless recordkeeping is a lesser included offense of improper recordkeeping and no due process violation resulted from a finding of liability for lesser included offense in that accused was informed of substance of charge with reasonable certainty. Department of Transportation v. Tutt, 576 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).

One year suspension of inspection privileges was warranted where service station owner furnished certificate without inspection by affixing inspection certificate to dump truck and permitted owner to remove truck from station before bringing the vehicle into compliance with the vehicle code. Department of Transportation v. DiMichele, 575 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).

Evidence supported finding owner strictly liable for actions of inspection station employes who altered the safety and emissions stickers; however, Department committed error by failure to consider point system penalty alternative. Strickland v. Department of Transportation, 574 A.2d 110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).

Element of fraud or deceit essential to charge of fraudulent recordkeeping requires inquiry into whether recordkeeping entry was false, entered intentionally and with the purpose of deceiving; where entry was made to cover up an error, fraud existed. Department of Transportation v. Midas Muffler Shop, 529 A.2d 91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).

Fraud and deceit are elements of fraudulent recordkeeping rather than of improper or careless recordkeeping. Department of Transportation v. Cappo, 527 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).

Applying the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a), the Commonwealth Court found that ‘‘improper’’ is defined as ‘‘not accordant with fact, truth or right procedure, i.e. incorrect, inaccurate, while ‘‘careless’’ is defined as ‘‘not taking ordinary or proper care, i.e., neglectful, inattentive.’’ Department of Transportation v. Cappo, 527 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).

The word ‘‘subsequent’’ as employed in subsection (c) means numbers which come after 2 not ‘‘later in time,’’ and permanent suspension was properly imposed based on single audit discovery of 104 fraudulent recordkeeping violations. The Department when considering multiple violations in a single case must impose separate penalties for each violation but has discretion in deciding whether any suspension shall run concurrently. McDonough v. Commonwealth, 489 A.2d 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

Receipt of a letter charging an owner of an inspection station with fraudulent record keeping puts that owner on constructive notice that the charge is ‘‘of the same nature’’ as a previous charge of fraudulent record keeping, and this section specifically delineated what constituted violations thus justifying imposition of a 3-year suspension even though the letter containing the second charge did not specify that the second offense was ‘‘of the same nature’’ as the first offense. Department of Transportation v. Johnson, 482 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

There was no error in the trial court’s determination that maintaining inspection records with some missing information did not constitute ‘‘faulty inspection’’ or ‘‘fraudulent record keeping’’ under 67 Pa. Code § 175.221(8)(ii) and (iv) (now 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a)). Department of Transportation v. Sortino, 462 A.2d 925 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The trial court, upon finding facts different from the Bureau, may properly revise a penalty assessed by the Bureau under subsection (d). Department of Transportation v. Sortino, 462 A.2d 925 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

A suspension for a violation of ‘‘fraudulent record keeping’’ under this section precludes using that record keeping as a basis for a violation of ‘‘faulty inspection’’ and resultant further suspension under this section. Department of Transportation v. Sortino, 462 A.2d 925 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The evidence for a violation for ‘‘fraudulent record keeping’’ under 67 Pa. Code § 175.221(1) (now 67 Pa. Code § 175.51) can not be used as a basis for suspension on the more general violation of ‘‘faulty inspection,’’ because they are two, separate violations of the Vehicle Code. A suspension for a violation of ‘‘fraudulent record keeping’’ under 67 Pa. Code § 175.221(1) (now 67 Pa. Code § 175.51) precludes using that record keeping as a basis for a violation of ‘‘faulty inspection’’ and resultant further suspension under subsection (1). Department of Transportation v. Sortino, 462 A.2d 925 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

In holding an inspection station owner responsible for his employe mechanic’s violation of 67 Pa. Code § 175.28, the court noted that this section provides the proper penalties for faulty inspections. Department of Transportation v. Stahl, 460 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The Department’s supension of an inspection station’s certificate of appointment and of a mechanic’s inspection certification under 67 Pa. Code § 175.51 (formerly numbered § 175.221) was not an abuse of discretion where the station did not provide supervision of the employe who committed the offense. Kerbeck v. Department of Transportation, 459 A.2d 908 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The Department’s failure to provide records for discovery of any previous violations by an inspection station, such documents to provide the basis for claiming entitlement to a warning in lieu of a suspension upon a first offense under 67 Pa. Code § 176.22, is sufficient grounds to allow default judgment to be granted against the Department. Commonwealth v. Redek Auto Service, 458 A.2d 614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

The Department has not erred if it treats two violations as separate offenses even though such violations were both discovered during the same Department inspection of the inspection station. Masqueliers Service v. Department of Transportation, 454 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

Incorrectly recording the vehicle registration number of and issuing an inspection sticker to a vehicle with various impermissible conditions is evidence of careless recordkeeping and faulty inspection under 67 Pa. Code § 175.51 (formerly numbered § 175.221) and is cause for suspension of automobile inspection privileges, Gula v. Department of Transportation. 451 A.2d 807 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).