IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

22nd Street Auto Center, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Motor Vehicles : No. 1326 C.D. 2022

:

David J. Sippel, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, : No. 1327 C.D. 2022

Bureau of Motor Vehicles : Submitted: October 10, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: January 26, 2024

22nd Street Auto Center (Auto Center) appeals from the Luzerne 

County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) October 18, 2022 orders overruling Auto 

Center’s appeal from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ (DOT),July 15, 2022 suspension of Auto 

Center’s Certificate of Appointment as an Official Safety Inspection Station 

(Certificate of Appointment) and David J. Sippel’s (Sippel) appeal from DOT’s 

suspension of his Official Safety Inspector’s certification. Auto Center and Sippel 
2

(collectively, Appellants) present two issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether the 

trial court should have modified DOT’s penalties because DOT failed to produce 

evidence that violations existed at the time of DOT’s inspection; and (2) whether the 

record evidence was sufficient to establish a claim for fraudulent recordkeeping 

under Section 175.51(a)(2)(i) of DOT’s Regulations, 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a)(2)(i).

1

 

After review, this Court vacates and remands. 

Auto Center employed Sippel as an automobile mechanic. On October 

2, 2021, Sippel inspected a 2000 Ford F250 pick-up truck with Vehicle Identification 

No. FTNX21F4YEA215390 (Vehicle) at Auto Center. Reproduced Record (R.R.) 

at 68-72.2 After receiving a complaint that the Vehicle should not have passed 

inspection, DOT’s Vehicle Inspection Division Quality Assurance Officers (QAO)

Dwayne Hunsicker (QAO Hunsicker) and QAO Leo Caffrey (QAO Caffrey) 

reinspected the Vehicle on November 22, 2021, 51 days and an additional 1,500 

miles after the original October 2, 2021 inspection date. QAO Hunsicker and QAO 

Caffrey concluded that the Vehicle was in such a deteriorated condition that 

Appellants should not have issued an inspection sticker for it on October 2, 2021. 

Notwithstanding, Appellants expressly represented in Auto Center’s DOT 

Inspection Report (Form MV-431) that Sippel inspected the Vehicle’s body on 

October 2, 2021. See R.R. at 68, 70. 

On July 15, 2022, DOT mailed a Notice of Suspension of Official 

Inspection Station to Auto Center suspending its Certificate of Appointment

1 Section 175.51(a) of DOT’s Regulations prescribes a one-year suspension for a first 

offense of fraudulent recordkeeping.

2 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2173 specifies: “[T]he pages of . . . the 

reproduced record . . . shall be numbered separately in Arabic figures . . . thus 1, 2, 3, etc., followed 

in the reproduced record by a small a, thus 1a, 2a, 3a, etc.” Pa.R.A.P. 2173. Because Appellants’ 

Reproduced Record page numbers were not followed by a small a, for ease of reference, this Court 

will refer to the Reproduced Record pages as Appellants numbered them.
3

pursuant to Section 4724 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 4724,3for 26 months 

effective August 22, 2022 (Auto Center Notice), based on the same failed inspection 

items. Auto Center’s 26-month suspension consisted of 1 year for furnishing, 

lending, giving, selling, or receiving a certificate of inspection without inspection; 1 

year for fraudulent recordkeeping, including the lesser offenses of improper 

recordkeeping and careless recordkeeping; and 2 months for improperly assigning a 

certificate of inspection. See R.R. at 7.

Also on July 15, 2022, DOT mailed a Notice of Suspension of Official 

Safety Inspector to Sippel suspending his Official Safety Inspector certification 

pursuant to Section 4726 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 4726,

4

for 14 months 

effective August 22, 2022 (Sippel Notice). The Sippel Notice specified that Sippel’s 

violations included issuing an inspection sticker for the Vehicle without conducting 

a required inspection 

and having the following failed inspection items: bed 

support rails, exhaust muffler missing, exhaust stacks 

without heat shields, left outer rod end with over .250 of 

an inch of play, missing passenger seatbelt, passenger side 

[U] bolt mounting plate to mount rear to spring 

deteriorated, [and] deteriorated floor and rocker panels.

R.R. at 5. Sippel’s 14-month suspension consisted of 1 year for furnishing, lending, 

giving, selling, or receiving an inspection certification without inspection; and 2 

months for improperly assigning a certificate of inspection. See R.R. at 5.

3 Section 4724(a) of the Vehicle Code authorizes DOT to suspend the certificate of 

appointment of an official safety inspection station “which has violated or failed to comply with 

any of the provisions of [Chapter 47 of the Vehicle Code] or [DOT’s Regulations].” 75 Pa.C.S. § 

4724(a).

4 Section 4726(b) of the Vehicle Code authorizes DOT to suspend a mechanic’s 

certification “if [DOT] finds that the mechanic has improperly conducted inspections or has 

violated or failed to comply with [Chapter 47 of the Vehicle Code (relating to vehicle inspections)] 

or [DOT’s Regulations].” 75 Pa.C.S. § 4726(b).
4

On August 22, 2022, Appellants filed separate appeals to the trial 

court.5 On October 17, 2022, the trial court conducted a consolidated de novo

hearing, at which QAO Hunsicker and QAO Caffrey testified and DOT presented 

certified copies of documents and photographs taken during the November 22, 2021

reinspection, which the trial court admitted into evidence. Appellants did not present 

any witnesses.6 On October 18, 2022, the trial court filed separate orders denying

Appellants’ appeals.7

On November 17, 2022, Appellants appealed to this Court.8 On 

January 5, 2023, the trial court filed its opinion pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (Rule 1925(a) Op.).

9

 On 

February 6, 2023, Appellants filed an unopposed motion in this Court to consolidate 

the two appeals, which this Court granted on February 10, 2023.

Preliminarily, Section 175.4 of DOT’s Regulations generally requires 

that “[a] registered vehicle moved upon a highway shall bear a valid certificate of 

inspection . . . [.]” 67 Pa. Code § 175.4. However, “[n]o certificate of inspection . . . 

may be marked or affixed to a vehicle unless the vehicle has successfully passed 

inspection, meeting the requirements of [the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-9805,] 

5 Sippel surrendered his Safety Inspector’s Certification on August 22, 2022. His 

suspension ended April 22, 2023.

6 At the conclusion of DOT’s case, Appellants made a motion for the trial court to sustain 

their appeals, which the trial court denied.

7 On November 3, 2022, Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court held 

a hearing on November 30, 2022. Thereafter, the parties briefed their respective positions. On 

December 21, 2022, the trial court denied Appellants’ motion for reconsideration.

8

“[This Court’s] scope of review in an inspection certificate suspension case ‘is limited to 

determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or whether the trial court’s findings 

are supported by substantial evidence.’” Perez-Diaz v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor

Vehicles, 298 A.3d 484, 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (quoting Fiore Auto Serv. v. Dep’t of Transp.,

Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 735 A.2d 734 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998)).

9 The record does not reflect whether the trial court ordered Appellants to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
5

and [Chapter 175 of DOT’s Regulations (relating to vehicle equipment and 

inspections)].” Section 175.41(a) of DOT’s Regulations, 67 Pa. Code § 175.41(a).

This Court has explained:

Authorization to make official inspections of motor 

vehicles in Pennsylvania is a privilege and not a right. 

[See] Commonwealth v. W. J. Harris & Son, . . . 170 A.2d 

591 ([Pa.] 1961). The inspection of motor vehicles is 

required in an effort to remove vehicles in an unsafe 

condition from being operated upon the highways, with 

the hoped-for result of reducing loss of life and injury. 

Therefore, once a violation of the inspection provisions of 

the [Vehicle] Code has taken place[,] [DOT] has not only 

the power as set forth in Section 4724 of the [Vehicle] 

Code, but the duty, to suspend the certificate of 

appointment. 

Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Searer, 413 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1980). “DOT has the burden of proving [Vehicle Code] violations by a 

preponderance of the evidence.” Firestone Tire & Serv. Ctr., Off. Inspection Station

No. 798 v. Dep’t of Transp., 871 A.2d 863, 867 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 

Appellants argue that the trial court should have modified the penalties 

DOT imposed because DOT failed to produce evidence that the violations existed at 

the time of QAO Hunsicker’s and QAO Caffrey’s November 22, 2021 reinspection.

Here, DOT presented testimony from QAO Hunsicker and QAO 

Caffrey regarding their November 22, 2021 reinspection observations. QAO 

Hunsicker testified at the trial court hearing that he has been certified to conduct

vehicle inspections since 1988, and he has inspected thousands of vehicles as a DOT 

QAO over the last seven years. The trial court qualified QAO Hunsicker as an expert 

in the field of vehicle safety inspections without objection. 

QAO Hunsicker recalled: 
6

A[.] I entered the [V]ehicle, found the passenger seatbelt 

not present in the [V]ehicle, the exhaust stacks coming out 

of the bed and no heat shields. It did not have a muffler 

on the [V]ehicle; had over a quarter inch of play on the left 

tie rod end [which affects steering]. The bench supports 

and everything was [sic] extremely deteriorated.

Q[.] Were all of these issues things that should have

prevented it from receiving a sticker on October 2, 2021?

A[.] Yes.

R.R. at 26. QAO Hunsicker described that the Vehicle’s bench supports were so 

rusted that they could no longer support a load, and the interior floor boards were 

deteriorated to the point that exhaust could enter the cab. See R.R. at 29. QAO 

Hunsicker added:

Throughout [DOT’s R]egulations, if there is [sic] any 

holes or anything in the floor that could exhibit any type 

of exhaust gases or anything into [a] vehicle, any holes 

into it, it fails inspection.

Since this [Vehicle] had it that way, by [DOT’s 

R]egulations, it failed inspection; because[] there were 

holes, and exhaust would go up inside the cab . . . .

R.R. at 30.

QAO Hunsicker admitted that he did not know whether the passenger 

seat belt was present and intact on October 2, 2021, or whether the Vehicle’s owner 

removed the muffler or the left tie rod play had changed since October 2, 2021, but 

he opined that there was no way the bench support and floor board rust could have 

advanced to the extent they had in the days or miles driven since the original 

inspection. See R.R. at 27-29.

QAO Caffrey testified that he has been certified to conduct vehicle 

inspections for 39 years, during which he has inspected several thousand vehicles. 

The trial court qualified QAO Caffrey as an expert in the field of vehicle safety 
7

inspections without objection. QAO Caffrey assisted with the Vehicle’s 

reinspection on November 22, 2021, and photographed the Vehicle’s deficiencies. 

QAO Caffrey confirmed that the Vehicle’s seatbelt, muffler, and heat 

shields were missing, and the tie rod was one-quarter inch or more out of play on 

November 22, 2021. See R.R. at 34. QAO Caffrey agreed with QAO Hunsicker 

that those items could have been removed and the tie rod could have loosened since 

the Vehicle’s October 2, 2021 inspection. See R.R. at 31, 34. However, he 

concurred with QAO Hunsicker and presented photographs of the floor board 

deterioration that could allow exhaust gases to enter the cab, and similarly opined 

that that level of deterioration could not have occurred since the October 2, 2021 

inspection. See R.R. at 32, 47-59. He further described that the Vehicle’s rear axle

U bolt and assembly saddle plate were so severely deteriorated and structurally

visible that they lacked sufficient strength to hold the Vehicle’s rear springs together, 

which deterioration could not have occurred since the original inspection date. See

id. QAO Caffrey added that the Vehicle’s rocker panel was completely deteriorated, 

thereby allowing exhaust to enter the operator’s compartment, and that such 

condition had to have been evident at the original inspection. See R.R. at 32-33.

Regarding the bench support, QAO Caffrey identified deterioration of the structural 

framework of the back of the cab and the under bench support which would not 

support the heavy loads for which the Vehicle was originally designed, and claimed 

that such could not have occurred between the inspection and reinspection dates. 

See R.R. at 33. QAO Caffrey acknowledged that rusting progresses over time, but 

declared that the extent of the rust on the Vehicle could not have gone from passable 

to complete deterioration in a seven-week period or 1,500 miles. See R.R. at 35. He 

concluded that, in his expert opinion, the Vehicle should not have passed inspection

on October 2, 2021. See R.R. at 36. 
8

“The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge, 

and his discretion is abused when he erroneously admits evidence, i.e., evidence 

which suggests a decision on an improper basis[.]” Kot v. Dep’t of Transp., 562 

A.2d 1019, 1021 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989). More specifically, “[q]uestions of witness 

credibility are solely within the province of the trial court.” Perez-Diaz v. Dep’t of

Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 298 A.3d 484, 490 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023).

In addition, this Court has observed:

In Bob Wark’s Arco v. Department of Transportation,

Bureau of Traffic Safety, . . . 455 A.2d 770 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 

1983), the [trial] court allowed [DOT’s] expert to testify 

as to whether defects readily observable at the time of 

reinspection were also observable at the time of 

inspection. In Milanovich v. Commonwealth, . . . 445 A.2d 

1337 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1983), th[is C]ourt said there must be 

reliance upon credible opinion testimony to meet the needs 

of the situation when there is not firsthand testimony of the 

vehicle’s condition at the time of the official inspection.

Kot, 562 A.2d at 1021. 

Further, 

[a] trial court’s role in an inspection certificate appeal is 

limited solely to a de novo determination of whether the

person charged with the violation has indeed committed

the violation for which the sanction was imposed. The 

[trial] court may not, as a parallel to exercising its 

discretion as fact[-]finder, do more than (1) affirm 

[DOT’s] penalty because the law as applied to the facts 

heard de novo leads to a conclusion of a violation of the 

law or (2) reverse [DOT’s] penalty because the law as 

applied to the facts heard de novo does not lead to a 

conclusion of a violation of law. The [trial] court may not, 

because of the possible unfairness or inequity of the result, 

reverse [DOT] or modify the penalty imposed.

Snyder v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 970 A.2d 523, 527-28 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety
9

v. Verna, 351 A.2d 694, 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (emphasis in original)). Because 

DOT’s penalties are mandatory, the trial court can only modify them if it makes new 

factual findings and reaches a new conclusion of law. See Dep’t of Transp., Bureau

of Driver Licensing v. Cappo, 527 A.2d 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); see also Dep’t of

Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Altier, 557 A.2d 1167, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1989) (“If the trial court makes findings of fact or conclusions of law differing from 

those made by DOT, [it] may then modify the imposed penalty.”).

Here, the trial court declared:

Based on the above record, th[is] trial court found that 

[QAO] Hunsicker and [QAO] Caffrey each were

adequately credentialed and experienced in the field of 

motor vehicle safety inspection to be recognized as, and 

offer the opinion testimony of, an expert in such field. 

Th[is] trial court found the testimony of each [expert]

credible, particularly with respect to their having opined 

that the state of deterioration in the body and flooring of 

the Vehicle was such that holes in the flooring of the

Vehicle would have existed and would have been readily 

ascertainable - given the administration of a proper official 

safety inspection - as of sufficient placement and

characteristics to have been capable of permitting exhaust 

gases to enter its passenger cabin.

Based on the above record, th[is] trial court found too that 

evidence of other equipment violations - e.g., photographs 

and expert opinion testimony regarding the lack of a 

required seatbelt in the cab, missing exhaust components, 

and damaged suspension/steering components - was not 

substantial and [DOT] failed to carry its burden to prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the gross 

equipment violations existed at the time the certificate of 

inspection was issued by [Sippel] for the Vehicle.

Rule 1925(a) Op. at 7-8 (R.R. at 109-110).

The trial court concluded:

The evidence presented by []DOT in the form of 

photographic evidence and opinion testimony from two 
10

experts in the field of vehicle safety inspections is 

substantial and supports the findings of th[is] trial court 

that the rust deterioration defects amounting to holes in the 

flooring and floor beds of the Vehicle existed at the time 

[Sippel] issued a certificate of inspection to the Vehicle at 

[Auto Center] on October 2, 2021. Further, th[is] trial

court found and concluded that at that time, such 

deterioration defects could reasonably have been 

discerned upon a proper inspection and that they . . . would 

have been readily recognizable [by Sippel] as permitting

the possibility of exhaust gas entering the cab of the 

Vehicle in violation of [Sections 175.78(d) or 175.108(d) 

of DOT’s Regulations,] 67 Pa. Code §§ 175.78(d)

[(relating to light trucks)] or 175.108(d) [(relating to 

medium and heavy trucks)]. 

Rule 1925(a) Op. at 10-11 (R.R. at 124-125).

Sections 175.78(d) and 175.108(d) of DOT’s Regulations state: 

“Flooring and floor beds shall be of a construction to support occupants and cargo 

which the vehicle is capable of carrying and may not have openings through which 

exhaust gases could enter passenger compartment.” 67 Pa. Code § 175.78(d), 

175.108(d). The trial court expressly found QAO Hunsicker’s and QAO Caffrey’s

testimony credible regarding the extensively deteriorated bench supports, floor 

boards, and rocker panels due to rust on the Vehicle that could allow exhaust to enter 

the passenger compartment.

10 See Rule 1925(a) Op. (R.R. at 109). The trial court 

also found that such rust would have been present on October 2, 2021, when Sippel,

on Auto Center’s behalf, issued a safety inspection sticker. 

On review of the unrebutted evidence, this Court agrees with the trial 

court that DOT presented substantial evidence that supported the trial court’s 

conclusion regarding the Vehicle’s significant rust and body deterioration that would 

have existed and Appellants could have reasonably discerned upon a proper 

inspection on October 2, 2021, and for which the Vehicle should have failed 

10 Notably, “Appellants do not challenge the finding of those violations.” Appellants’ Br. 

at 11.
11

inspection. This Court also agrees with the trial court that DOT failed to produce 

substantial record evidence to support its conclusion that “the lack of a required 

seatbelt in the cab, missing exhaust components, and damaged suspension/steering 

components[]” would have been evident to Sippel on October 2, 2021. Rule 1925(a) 

Op. at 7 (R.R. at 109, 121). Although the former supports the trial court’s conclusion

that Appellants violated Sections 4724(a) and 4726(b) of the Vehicle Code, in 

reaching the latter conclusion, the trial court made new factual findings and, thus, 

could have modified DOT’s suspensions. See Cappo; see also Altier. Nevertheless, 

either due to oversight or error of law, without explanation, the trial court did not do 

so. Without the benefit of the trial court’s reasoning, this Court is unable to conduct 

meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, this Court must remand this matter for 

the trial court to further address whether it considered modifying the suspensions in 

light of its new findings of fact and, if so, why it declined to do so. 

Appellants also contend that the record evidence was not sufficient to 

establish a claim for fraudulent recordkeeping under Section 175.51(a)(2)(i) of 

DOT’s Regulations. Appellants specifically claim that neither QAO Hunsicker nor 

QAO Caffrey testified about fraud or stated that the recordkeeping was done in a 

manner so as to deceive DOT, and DOT’s counsel did not argue that Auto Center

submitted or maintained its records with the intent of deceiving DOT.

DOT presented substantial record evidence of sufficient rust and body 

deterioration on the Vehicle as to render it unsafe, and that such conditions would 

have been evident on October 2, 2021, but Appellants represented on Form MV-431

that Appellants inspected the Vehicle, including the body, and issued an inspection 

sticker.

Section 175.42(a) of DOT’s Regulations provides, in relevant part:

(c) Records retention.
12

(1) The original official inspection report sheet (Form 

MV-431 or MV-480) shall be retained as a garage 

record and kept on file at the station for audit. At the 

close of each inspection period, the official inspection 

report sheet shall be placed in the station’s files, even 

though all spaces may not have been used, and a new 

inspection report sheet shall be started for the new 

inspection period.

(2) A work order signed by the inspecting mechanic as 

required under this section shall be available for 

inspection upon request by the inspection station 

supervisor or an authorized representative of [DOT].

(d) Content.

(1) Stations utilizing Form MV-431 or MV-480. The 

paper inspection report sheet (Form MV-431 for 

passenger cars, trucks and buses or MV-480 for 

motorcycles and trailers) shall be neat and legible and 

completed in its entirety. Details pertinent to every 

vehicle inspected, including rejections, shall be 

recorded on the report sheet at the time of inspection. 

Items inspected, adjusted or repaired shall be recorded. 

67 Pa. Code § 175.42 (emphasis added). 

Section 175.42(a) of DOT’s Regulations similarly mandates:

(a) Personal liability. It is the responsibility of the owner 

of an inspection station to do all of the following:

(1) To conduct the business of the official inspection 

station honestly and in the best interests of this 

Commonwealth, in accordance with the provisions of 

[the Vehicle Code] and [Chapter 175 of DOT’s 

Regulations], and, except in the case of a fleet or 

Commonwealth inspection station, to make every 

reasonable effort to inspect all vehicles upon request.

. . . . 

(4) To keep inspection records and required work 

orders available for examination and audit by the 

inspection station supervisor and other authorized persons.

67 Pa. Code § 175.29(a) (emphasis added).
13

Section 175.51(a)(2)(i) of DOT’s Regulations specifies that fraudulent 

recordkeeping carries a one-year suspension for a first violation.

11

 See 67 Pa. Code 

§ 175.51(a)(2)(i). Section 175.51(a)(2)(ii) of DOT’s Regulations imposes a twomonth suspension for a first violation of improper recordkeeping, see 67 Pa. Code § 

175.51(a)(2)(ii), and Section 175.51(a)(2)(viii) of DOT’s Regulations calls for a 

warning for a first offense of careless recordkeeping. See 67 Pa. Code § 

175.51(a)(2)(viii).

Although the trial court properly found that rust had deteriorated the

Vehicle’s body to the point that exhaust gases could enter the passenger 

compartment, and that such damage would have been evident on October 2, 2021,

the trial court did not make factual findings or otherwise address whether DOT 

proved that Appellants’ representation on the Form MV-431 that the Vehicle passed 

inspection was fraudulent rather than merely careless or improper.

12

 Without the 

11 Section 175.42(a) of DOT’s Regulations declares: “Fraudulent recording of an 

inspection will be considered cause for suspension of inspection privileges.” 67 Pa. Code § 

175.42(a). This Court has held:

With respect to the issue of fraudulent recordkeeping, “such occurs 

when an entry in the record, the [Form] MV-431, is false, entered 

intentionally and with the purpose of deceiving.” Fiore . . . , 735 

A.2d [at] 737 . . . . An entry made to mislead anyone inspecting the 

record into believing that the record was correct is deceitful. [See] 

Dep[’]t of Transp[.], Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Midas Muffler

Shop, . . . 529 A.2d 91 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1987).

Firestone, 871 A.2d at 867.

12 The trial court only declared:

[DOT’s R]egulations at [Sections] 175.51(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(v)[, 

67 Pa. Code §§ 175.51(a)(1)(ii), (2)(v),] provide, respectively, that 

a violation for the giving of a certificate of inspection without 

inspection precipitates the issuance of a [one-]year certification 

suspension and violation for improperly assigning a certificate of 

inspection corresponds to a [two-]month certification suspension.

Rule 1925(a) Op. at 8 (R.R. at 110, 122).
14

benefit of the trial court’s reasoning, this Court is unable to conduct meaningful 

appellate review. Accordingly, this Court must remand this matter for the trial court 

to address this issue.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s orders are vacated, and this 

matter is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with this Opinion.

 

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

22nd Street Auto Center, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Motor Vehicles : No. 1326 C.D. 2022

:

David J. Sippel, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, : No. 1327 C.D. 2022

Bureau of Motor Vehicles :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2024, the Luzerne County 

Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) October 18, 2022 orders are vacated, and this 

matter is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with this Opinion.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge