Dmytro Garazha, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Best Value Auto Center v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation

Dmytro Garazha, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Best Value Auto Center v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation

Civil Action-Agency Law-Automotive Service Station-Automobile Inspection-Official Safety Inspector Certification Suspension-Violations-Improper Record Keeping-Careless Record Keeping-Attachment of Driver’s License-Certificate of Salvage-Faulty Inspections-Good Condition of Bays

Dmytro Garazha (“Garazha”) is the owner and operator of Best Value Auto Center (“Best Value”).  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“DOT”) issued notices of suspensions of the certifications as an official safety inspector of both Garazha and Best Value for improper recordkeeping, faulty inspecting, signing certificates of inspection and maintaining an unclean inspection area.  Garazha and Best Value appealed the notices of suspension.

1.  An appeal from an order of the DOT suspending a motor vehicle inspection certificate is heard de novo.

2.  The DOT has the burden of proving the violations charged by a preponderance of the evidence. 

3.  If the court reaches the same legal conclusion as the DOT, it may not alter the penalty imposed, including whether a suspension is directed to be served concurrently with or consecutively to other periods of suspension.

4.  While the existence of inaccuracies in record keeping is sufficient proof to find liability for improper record keeping, a showing of inadvertence lowers the issue of the inaccuracy to careless record keeping and requires application of an ordinary and proper care standard. 

5.   To the extent that Garazha erred by signing a form certifying that a vehicle is roadworthy prior to the vehicle owner, the lack of the vehicle owner’s signature combined with lack of express regulation, statute or guidance on the matter supports a finding of inadvertence rising to the level of careless recordkeeping for which a warning, not suspension, should be issued by the DOT.

6.   Where no requirement appears on the MV-426B application or the certificates of salvage necessitating attachment of copies of driver’s licenses, the DOT failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to violations for failure to record signatures on the back of titles or to append copies of driver’s licenses.

7.  Where the inspector for the DOT testified that vehicle inspections could be performed outside  upon a concrete surface and Garazha indicated that he performed the inspections in question outside on the concrete area with photos substantiating the presence of a concrete area large enough to accommodate vehicles, the DOT failed to establish violations for faulty inspections. 

8.  No violation will be found for maintaining an unclean inspection area where there were three (3) workdays between the initial and subsequent visits of the DOT official, Garazha testified that he was ill during that time all inspections had been performed outside with no evidence that the outside area was not in good condition even if the inspection bays had not been kept in good condition as required by law.

L.C.C.C.P. Nos. 2024-CV-1168 and 2024-CV-1166, Opinion by Donna Long Brightbill, Judge, January 16, 2025.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION – LAW

DMYTRO GARAZHA,                                           :          

                        Appellant                                           :

                                                                                    :

            vs.                                                                    :           No. 2024-CV-1168

                                                                                    :          

COMMONWEALTH OF                            :          

PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT         :          

OF TRANSPORTATION,                          :          

                        Appellee                                             :                                  

BEST VALUE AUTO CENTER,               :          

                        Appellant                                           :

                                                                                    :

            vs.                                                                    :           No. 2024-CV-1166

                                                                                    :          

COMMONWEALTH OF                            :          

PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT         :          

OF TRANSPORTATION,                          :          

                        Appellee                                             :                                  

APPEARANCES:

Andrew M. Luch, Esquire.                                                     For Dmytro Garazha and

Buzgon Davis Law Offices                                                   Best Value Auto Center

Kelly Edward Solomon, Esquire                                            For Department of 

Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel                                Transportation

OPINION, LONG BRIGHTBILL, J., January 16, 2025

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            This matter arises from the respective suspensions of Dmytro Garazha and Best Value Auto Center as Official Safety Inspector and Official Safety Inspection Station. Dmytro Garazha (“Mr. Garazha”) is the owner and operator of Best Value Auto Center (“Best Value”). On May 22, 2024, Tonda Bryant, a Quality Assurance Officer working for Parsons, a contractor for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“Department”), conducted a routine audit of Best Value’s inspection service station and reported violations relating to the inspection records. Ms. Bryant also reported that she observed that Best Value’s two inspection bays were cluttered with trash and various other items, and that she informed the station owner, Mr. Garazha, that the bays must remain clear to perform inspections. On May 28, 2024, Ms. Bryant returned to the service station and observed the inspection bays in the same cluttered condition. Ms. Bryant’s audit on May 28 revealed that Mr. Garazha issued eleven inspection stickers between her first visit on May 22 and her second visit on May 28. Mr. Garazha informed Ms. Bryant that he performed these inspections in the area outside the service station.

On July 5, 2024, the Department issued two notices to Mr. Garazha informing him that his certification as an Official Safety Inspector was being suspended pursuant to Section 4726 of the Vehicle Code^[1]. The first notice related to conduct occurring between April 10, 2024, and May 20, 2024^[2], and ordered a suspension for a period of two months for improper recordkeeping, including “failed to record signatures on the backs of titles, applicant signatures, and copies of driver’s licenses; Photos not signed by the document reviewer as required in the MV-426B.^[3]” (Exhibit C-1-1168). The second notice related to conduct occurring between May 23, 2024, and May 28, 2024, and ordered a suspension for a period of two months for improper recordkeeping, two months for faulty inspection of equipment or parts, two months for improperly assigning certificate of inspection, and two months for unclean inspection area. (Exhibit C-2-1168). The Department ordered in each notice that all suspensions run consecutively, resulting in a total suspension of Mr. Garazha’s inspection certification for ten months pursuant to 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a)^[4]. (Exhibits C-1-1168 and C-2-1168).

The same day, the Department issued two notices to Best Value stating that its Certificate of Appointment as an Official Safety Inspection Station was being suspended pursuant to Section 4724 of the Vehicle Code^[5]. The notices issued to Best Value were identical to those issued to Mr. Garazha, except that the second notice to Best Value imposed a suspension for a period of 12 months (rather than two) for improper recordkeeping. (Exhibits C-1-1166 and C-2-1166). The Department again ordered that all suspensions run consecutively, resulting in a total suspension of Best Value’s Certificate of Appointment for 20 months pursuant to 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a). (Exhibits C-1-1166 and C-2-1166).

On August 1, 2024, Mr. Garazha and Best Value filed petitions to appeal the respective suspensions. On November 25, 2024, this Court consolidated the two appeals and held a hearing de novo. At the hearing, the Department offered testimony from Ms. Bryant, copies of the inspection records, and photographs of the inspection bays. Mr. Garazha testified on behalf of both himself and Best Value regarding his inspection and recordkeeping procedures.

DISCUSSION

            An appeal from an order of the Director of the Bureau of Traffic Safety (i.e., the Department) suspending a motor vehicle inspection certificate is heard de novo. Com. v. Marini, 360 A.2d 263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). The Department has the burden of proving the violations charged by a preponderance of the evidence.  Michael’s Motors v. Com., Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 690 A.2d 839, 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). The trial court is limited solely to a determination of whether the person charged committed the violation for which the suspension was imposed. Com. v. Demuro, 357 A.2d 270, 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). If the trial court reaches the same legal conclusion as the Department, it may not alter the penalty imposed by the Department. Tropeck v. Com., Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 847 A.2d 208, 214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Because of the mandatory nature of the penalties provided for in the Department’s regulations, the trial court may not reverse or modify a penalty imposed by the Department simply because it believes the result is harsh or inequitable. Demuro at 272. Whether a suspension is to be served concurrently or consecutively is part of the penalty imposed. Tropeck at 214. Thus, the trial court may only reverse a suspension or modify suspensions to run concurrently rather than consecutively where it makes different findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tropeck at 213.

            Here, the Department has charged both Mr. Garazha and Best Value with five violations of the Vehicle Code and ordered that the suspensions run consecutively, resulting in a total suspension of ten months for Mr. Garazha’s inspector license and a total suspension of 20 months for Best Value’s Certificate of Appointment as an official safety inspection station. This Court will address each alleged violation in turn, and for the reasons that follow, will sustain the appeals and reverse the sanctions imposed by the Department. 

1. First notice, ordering suspension for improper recordkeeping between April 10, 2024, and May 20, 2024.

The Department’s regulations contain three categories of unlawful recordkeeping by official inspection stations and certified inspection mechanics: fraudulent recordkeeping, improper recordkeeping, and careless recordkeeping. Commonwealth Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Mazzarini, 919 A.2d 295, 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Because the terms “fraudulent,” “improper,” and “careless,” are not defined in the regulations or by statute, they are construed according to their common and approved usage. Id.; see also Fairfield Ford/VW/Hyundai/Mitsubishi v. Com., Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 823 A.2d 267, 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). In this case, Mr. Garazha and Best Value were not charged with fraudulent recordkeeping, the highest level of unlawful recordkeeping. Instead, the citations were issued for improper recordkeeping. Careless recordkeeping is a lesser included offense of improper recordkeeping. See Fairfield Ford at 272. Thus, the terms relevant to this appeal are “improper,” which means “not accordant with fact, truth, or right procedure, i.e., incorrect, inaccurate,” and “careless” which means “not taking ordinary or proper care, i.e., neglectful, inattentive.” Mazzarini at 299. The existence of inaccuracies is sufficient proof to find liability; however, a showing of inadvertence lowers the presence of the inaccuracy to careless recordkeeping and requires that a standard of ordinary and proper care be applied. Id. at 299-300.

The first violation for improper recordkeeping stems from Ms. Bryant’s initial audit of the Best Value service station on May 22, 2024. In her report, Ms. Bryant states that she reviewed the MV-426B applications completed by Mr. Garazha and found some to be incomplete. (Exhibits C1-1168 and C1-1166^[6]). Specifically, Section H of the MV-426B form was not signed by the applicant, the applications were missing signatures on the back of the titles as well as copies of driver’s licenses, and all four photos were not signed by the certified document reviewer. (Exhibit C-1). Certified copies of nine MV-426B applications completed by Mr. Garazha between April 10, 2024, and May 20, 2024, were included in Exhibit C-1. Of those nine applications, seven are missing the applicant’s signature in Section H. A Certificate of Salvage is attached to four of the applications; on the back of two of these Certificates, Section A (Assignment of Salvage) is completed and signed by individuals or businesses other than Mr. Garazha; the other two are blank. None of the applications contain a copy of a driver’s license. Photos of the front, rear, right and left sides of the inspected vehicle are attached to all applications; these photos appear together on a single page and are signed and dated by Mr. Garazha in the middle of the page.

1. Section H of the MV-426B not signed by the applicant.

Section H of the MV-426B form contains spaces for three authorized signatures. The first is for the individual applying for the branded certificate of title (the applicant); this portion of Section H states, in relevant part, “Applicant – Vehicle Compliance Certification: I/We hereby state that this vehicle has been returned to road-worthy condition, by me or my agent, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.” Beneath this statement, there are blanks for the applicant’s signature, printed name, date, and telephone number.

The second signature space is for that of the enhanced vehicle safety inspector, who certifies that they have examined the vehicle and found it to be in road-worthy condition. The third signature space is for the certified document reviewer, and states, in relevant part, “I hereby state that I have examined the title application and all related supporting documentation and found it to qualify for the brand(s) indicated by my signature in the appropriate block(s) below.” In this case, Mr. Garazha served as both the enhanced vehicle safety inspector and the certified document reviewer, as he is authorized to do by statute. See 67 Pa. Code § 175.35.

It is the Department’s position that Mr. Garazha, as the certified document reviewer, was not authorized to sign the third portion of Section H unless the applicant’s signature appears in the first portion. However, neither the Department nor Ms. Bryant provided support for this position by pointing to the Department’s regulations or guidelines. Mr. Garazha testified that the applicant was not always present to sign their portion of Section H when he signed as the certified document reviewer. Mr. Garazha further testified that after he inspected a vehicle, reviewed the documentation relating to Form MV-426B, and signed the second and third portions of Section H, the applicants would take the MV-426B application to a notary, where the applicant would sign the application and have it notarized before submitting it to the Department. Therefore, it was Mr. Garazha’s understanding that the applicant was not required to sign Section H prior to Mr. Garazha signing his portion of the form.

Absent regulation, statute, or guidance mandating that the applicant sign Section H before the certified document reviewer signs that they have “examined the title application and all related supporting documentation and found it to qualify for the brand(s) indicated,” this Court is not persuaded that Mr. Garazha acted improperly by signing prior to the applicant. Mr. Garazha, acting as the enhanced safety inspector as well as the certified document reviewer, would certainly be capable of confirming whether a vehicle had been returned to road-worthy condition and whether the application qualifies for the indicated branded title.

Moreover, Mr. Garazha testified that he works six days a week and performs three or four inspections a day, for an average of eighty inspections each month, and that he has never received a warning from the Department regarding the lack of an applicant’s signature in Section H. To the extent Mr. Garazha erred by signing Section H prior to the applicant, it is this Court’s opinion that the lack of the applicant’s signature on seven out of approximately eighty applications, combined with the lack of express regulation, statute, or guidance on this matter, supports a finding of inadvertence.

1. Missing signatures on the backs of titles and copies of driver’s licenses.

The Department states in its first notices and the attached reports that “Applications were missing signatures on the back of the Titles and copies of Drivers licenses [sic].” (Exhibit C-1). This statement appears to refer, in part, to the Certificate of Salvage that was attached to four of the nine applications included in Exhibit C-1. On the back of these Certificates of Salvage is Section A: Assignment of Salvage. Section A contains a section for the odometer reading of the vehicle, a space for the seller to sign and print, and a space for the purchaser to sign and print. In the course of her audit, Ms. Bryant determined that the four attached Certificates contained an error and marked these alleged errors by circling Section A. Notably, Ms. Bryant circled Section A on the two Certificates that were completed by the seller and purchaser, and on the two Certificates where Section A was left blank. Ms. Bryant did not offer any testimony regarding how Mr. Garazha allegedly erred with regard to the Certificates of Salvage and Exhibit C-1 does not clarify the issue.

In addition, after careful review of all sections on the MV-426B application and the back of the Certificates of Salvage, the Court does not find any requirement that a driver’s license be attached^[7]. Ms. Bryant did not offer testimony regarding a requirement that the MV-426B application or the Certificate of Salvage be accompanied by a copy of a driver’s license. Therefore, the Court finds that the Department has failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to the alleged violations for failure to “record signatures on the backs of titles…and copies of driver’s licenses.”

1. Photos not signed by the document reviewer as required in the MV-426B application.

Finally, the Department alleges that Mr. Garazha failed to sign all four photos as required by the certified document reviewer. In support of this violation, the Department admitted Exhibit C-4, a publication issued by the Department titled “Enhanced Vehicle Safety Inspection Self-Study Training and Reference Guide.” The publication states, in relevant part: “all Form MV-426B applications must be accompanied by color photographs of the vehicle taken by the certified enhanced vehicle safety inspector at the time of the enhanced safety inspection to include the background of the station. Color photographs should clearly show the entire front, rear, right and left sides of the vehicle… All color photographs must be signed and dated by the certified enhanced vehicle safety inspector who performed the enhanced inspection of the vehicle.” (Exhibit C-4).

Mr. Garazha testified that it was his practice to take the four photographs showing the front, rear, right and left sides of the vehicle, place those four photographs together on a single page, and then sign and date in the middle of that page. He stated that it was his understanding that this was sufficient to prevent any alteration of the photographs later and that he did not believe each separate photograph required his signature when they were displayed together on a single page. The Court agrees that the quoted publication does not expressly bar Mr. Garazha’s practice of placing the four photographs together on a single page and signing in the middle of that page. To the extent a signature is required on each individual photograph, this Court considers Mr. Garazha’s failure to comply with an ambiguously worded publication to be an inadvertent mistake.

For the above reasons, this Court finds that the missing applicant signatures in Section H of the MV-426B, as well as the failure of Mr. Garazha to individually sign each photograph, are properly categorized as careless recordkeeping, rather than improper recordkeeping. The Court further finds that the Department has failed to show a violation for a failure to “record signatures on the backs of titles… and copies of driver’s licenses.” Therefore, the Court will sustain both Mr. Garazha and Best Value’s appeals as to the violations for improper recordkeeping between April 10, 2024 and May 20, 2024 and reverse the respective two-month suspensions imposed by the Department. Instead, the Court finds that Mr. Garazha’s conduct rises only to the level of careless recordkeeping and Orders the Department to issue a warning to Mr. Garazha and Best Value pursuant to 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a)(3)(viii). 

2. Second notice, ordering suspensions for various alleged violations between May 23, 2024, and May 28, 2024.

The second notice issued to Mr. Garazha and Best Value references violations allegedly observed by Ms. Bryant when she returned to the service station on May 28, 2024. The notice to Mr. Garazha orders a suspension of two months each for faulty inspection of equipment or parts, improperly assigning certificates of inspection, improper recordkeeping, and an unclean inspection area, for a total suspension of eight months. (Exhibit C-2-1168). The notice to Best Value imposes identical suspensions with the exception of the suspension for improper recordkeeping, which was ordered for 12 months, resulting in a total suspension of 18 months. (Exhibit C-2-1166^[8]). The attached reports explain that although the service bays remained in the same cluttered condition as they were on Ms. Bryant’s first audit on May 22, 2024, Mr. Garazha had issued eleven inspection stickers since May 22. (Exhibit C-2). The reports also note that Mr. Garazha told Ms. Bryant that he put those cars on jacks outside of his garage to perform the inspections. (Exhibit C-2). There was no reference to conduct constituting improper recordkeeping in either notice or the attached reports. (Exhibit C-2).

2. Faulty inspection of equipment or parts and improperly assigning certificates of inspection.

The Department apparently inferred that because the inspection bays were cluttered, Mr. Garazha could not have performed a proper inspection on the eleven vehicles that were issued inspection stickers between May 23 and May 28, 2024; therefore, those inspections must have been faulty and the certificates of inspection improperly assigned. This inference is not supported by the evidence. Ms. Bryant testified that the inspection bays were too cluttered to have pulled a car inside. However, Ms. Bryant also testified that inspections could be performed outside if on a concrete surface rather than dirt or gravel. As noted in Ms. Bryant’s report, Mr. Garazha told Ms. Bryant that he had performed those eleven inspections outside because “he likes working outside.” (Exhibit C-2). Mr. Garazha also testified that he had performed those inspections on the concrete area outside of his garage, and that when the weather permits, he enjoys working outside because of the fresh air and because the lighting outside is often better than inside. The photographs of the inspected vehicles, introduced by the Department as part of Exhibit C-1, clearly show a concrete area directly outside the service station large enough to accommodate a minivan or SUV.

Based on the testimony, this Court does not find it more likely than not that the eleven vehicle inspections were performed improperly. Mr. Garazha testified credibly that he performed those inspections on the concrete area outside his garage that is plainly visible in the photographs admitted by the Department^[9]. Ms. Bryant acknowledged that an inspection could be properly performed outdoors on a concrete surface. Given the testimony, the Department’s unsubstantiated inference does not prove the violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the Court finds that the Department has failed to meet its burden of proof as to the violations for faulty inspection of equipment or parts and improperly assigning certificates of inspection and sustains the appeals as to each violation.

2.  Unclean inspection area.

The second notice also imposed two-month suspensions to Mr. Garazha and Best Value for an unclean inspection area. The Department admitted photographs taken by Ms. Bryant during the May 22, 2024, audit. (Exhibit C-3). Ms. Bryant testified that the bays remained in the same condition when she returned on May 28, 2024. The photographs show that the floor and worktables in the service station are cluttered with boxes, tools, and various vehicle components.

The Court acknowledges that the state of the inspection bays as depicted in the photographs violates the requirement that inspection areas be kept in good condition. See 67 Pa. Code § 175.25(a)(1). However, the Court notes that there were only three full workdays between Ms. Bryant’s two visits, and that Mr. Garazha testified that he was sick during this time and not able to work at his full capacity. In addition, Ms. Bryant testified that during her visit on May 28, Mr. Garazha’s children came to his shop to help clear the bays. The Court further notes Mr. Garazha’s credible testimony that all eleven vehicle inspections after May 22 had been performed outside. There was no testimony or other evidence offered to show that the outdoor area was not in good condition. Given the fact that Mr. Garazha did not actually perform any inspections in the cluttered bays, and the lack of evidence that the outdoor area, which served as Mr. Garazha’s inspection area during the relevant time, was not in good condition, this Court will not find a violation for an unclean inspection area.

2. Improper recordkeeping.

Finally, the second notices imposed a two-month suspension to Mr. Garazha and a twelve-month suspension to Best Value for improper recordkeeping. However, neither the notices nor the attached reports offer any explanation as to the second violation for improper recordkeeping. Further, Ms. Bryant did not offer any testimony of improper recordkeeping between May 23 and May 28, 2024. Assuming this violation was imposed on the basis of the same unsupported inference discussed above (i.e., that issuing an inspection sticker after a faulty inspection amounts to improper recordkeeping), the Court finds the Department has failed to meet its burden of proof as to this violation, for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore, the Court will sustain the appeal as to the suspensions imposed for improper recordkeeping between May 23 and May 28, 2024.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that Mr. Garazha’s conduct between April 10, 2024, and May 20, 2024, rises only to the level of careless recordkeeping. Therefore, the Court will sustain both appeals as to the violation for improper recordkeeping between April 10, 2024 and May 20, 2024, and reverse the two-month suspensions imposed by the Department. Instead, the Court directs the Department to issue a warning to Mr. Garazha and Best Value pursuant to 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a)(3)(viii). 

The Court further finds that the Department has failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to the violations for faulty inspection of equipment or parts, improperly assigning certificates of inspection, and improper recordkeeping between May 23, 2024, and May 28, 2024. Therefore, the Court will sustain the appeals as to these violations and reverse the suspensions imposed by the Department.

Finally, the Court finds that under the circumstances of this case, Mr. Garazha is not in violation of the requirement that the inspection area be kept in good condition. The Court will sustain the appeals as to this violation and reverse the suspensions imposed by the Department.

A concomitant Order will be entered consistent with the foregoing.

---

[1] Section 4726(b) of the Vehicle Code provides that: “The department shall supervise mechanics certified under this section and may suspend the certification issued to a mechanic if it finds that the mechanic has improperly conducted inspections or has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted by the department.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4726(b).

[2] Although both notices were issued on July 5, 2024, and Mr. Garazha received both in the mail on the same day, for the sake of clarity the Court will refer to the notice referencing alleged violations observed in the initial audit as the first notice, and the notice referencing alleged violations observed in the subsequent audit as the second notice.

[3] The MV-426B is a form that must be filled out and submitted to the Department to have a Certificate of Title issued for reconstructed, specially constructed, collectible, modified, flood, recovered theft vehicles, and street rods (i.e., a branded title).

[4] 67 Pa. Code § 175.51(a) states that “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.” It further lists the types of violations and the duration of suspension that shall be imposed for each violation.

[5] Section 4724(a) of the Vehicle Code provides that: “The department shall supervise and inspect official inspection stations and may suspend the certificate of appointment issued to a station or may impose a monetary penalty or may issue a warning against the station which it finds is not properly equipped or conducted or which has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted by the department.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 4724(a).

[6] As Exhibits C1-1168 and C1-1166 are identical other than being addressed to Dmytro Garazha and Best Value Auto Center, respectively, they are hereafter referred to collectively as “Exhibit C-1”.

[7] There is, however, a blank for the applicant’s driver’s license number, photo identification number, or business identification number in Section A of the MV-426B. The Court notes that this blank is filled out on each of the nine applications submitted by the Department.

[8] As Exhibits C-2-1168 and C-2-1166 are identical except with regard to the addressee and the length of the suspension imposed for Best Value, they are hereafter referred to collectively as “Exhibit C-2”.

[9] Although the Department argues this testimony is not credible given the time of year, this Court is of the opinion that by the end of May, the weather tends to be mild enough to permit outdoor work.