[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-269349-105":59,"doc-detail-269349-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","before-the-department-of-consumer-affairs-proposed-decision","BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS - PROPOSED DECISION","","Proposed Decision concerns an administrative matter brought by the Bureau of Automotive Repair within California’s Department of Consumer Affairs against a respondent holding an advanced emissions-related technician license. The complainant seeks license discipline, alleging the respondent did not perform a proper visual smog inspection of an undercover vehicle. The decision summarizes program requirements for visual and functional checks, the undercover inspection outcomes, and subsequent testing that showed the vehicle met emission requirements, concluding no cause exists to discipline the license based on the asserted grounds.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/before-the-department-of-consumer-affairs-proposed-decision/269349/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/before-the-department-of-consumer-affairs-proposed-decision/269349.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Valentina","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What action does the complainant request against the respondent?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The complainant seeks to discipline the respondent’s license based on alleged improper smog inspection performance.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the decision conclude regarding discipline for the alleged inspection issue?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The decision concludes that no cause exists to discipline the respondent’s license, because the complainant’s contention does not establish a basis for discipline.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How did the undercover vehicle testing relate to the disputed visual inspection?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"After the undercover inspection, the vehicle underwent California emissions testing at the documentation lab and produced PASS overall results, indicating compliance with requirements for issuance of a certificate of compliance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},269349,1789450768,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","# BEFORE THE\n\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRSFOR THE BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRSTATE OF CALIFORNIA  \nIn the Matter of the Accusation Against:  \n## PROPOSED DECISION\n\nAdministrative Law Judge Danette C.Brown,Office of AdministrativeHearings,State of California,heard this matter in Sacramento,California,onn  \nSterling A.Smith,Deputy Attorney General,represented complainant SherryMehl,in her official capacity as Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair(Bureau),Department of Consumer Affairs.  \nAttorney William D.Ferreira represented respondent&,who was present throughout the hearing.  \nEvidence was received,the record was closed,and the matter was submittedfor decision on December 10,2013.  \n## SUMMARY\n\nComplainant seeks to discipline respondent's license on the grounds that hedid not perform a proper smog inspection of the Bureau's undercover vehicle.TheBureau's procedures require the smog technician to conduct a visual inspection of thevehicle's emissions control systems and visually verify that all required emissioncontrol devices are properly installed.It is undisputed that respondent performed avisual inspection of the Bureau's undercover vehicle's emissions control systems.Complainant contends,however,that respondent did not perform a proper visualinspection because he incorrectly concluded that the positive crankcase ventilationhose was damaged and the evaporative service port was not properly connected.Butthe accuracy of his conclusions is irrelevant.Therefore,no cause exists to disciplinerespondent's license.  \n## FACTUAL FINDINGS\n\n1.  Complainant issued the First Amended Accusation against respondenton March 8,2013.  \n2.   On April 28,2010,the Bureau issued Advanced Emission Specialist(EA)Technician license       to respondent.²Respondent's license will expireon December 31,2015,unless renewed.  \nonly to respondent  \n²Effective August 1,2012,California Code of Regulations,title 16,sections3340.28,3340.29,and 3340.30 were amended to implement a license restructure fromthe Advanced Emission Specialist Technician(EA)license and Basic Area(EB)Technician license to Smog Check Inspector(EO)license and/or Smog Check Repair  \n3.   The Bureau has the responsibility of monitoring the performance ofsmog check stations and smog check technicians and ensuring that they are properlyperforming their duties under the smog control laws of the State of California.Tomonitor compliance with the State's Emissions Inspection Program,commonlyreferred to as the Smog Check Program,the Bureau conducts undercover operationsat various licensed smog check stations  \n4.   The California Emissions Inspection Test requires the licensedtechnician to:(1)visually inspect the vehicle's emission components to ensure thatthey are present,properly connected,and in good working condition;(2)functionallytest or inspect the vehicle's gas cap,the malfunction indicator light(MIL),ifequipped,the ignition timing,if adjustable,and,depending on the test required,theexhaust gas recirculation(EGR)system;and(3)conduct a tailpipe emissions test.  \n5.   The vehicle must pass all visual and functional tests,as well as thetailpipe emissions test,before an Emission Inspection Certificate of Compliance(Certificate of Compliance)can be issued by the technician,verifying that the vehiclepassed the smog inspection.  \n## Undercover Operation\n\n6.   The Bureau's undercover operation occurred on July 13,2011,at).Respondent performed a smogcheck on the Bureau's 1998 Ford Explorer(Explorer).  \n7.   The Explorer was first taken to the Bureau's Documentation Lab,where Bureau employee Joseph Gibson conducted a Two Speed Idle(TSI)CaliforniaEmissions Test to ensure that the vehicle passed the test.He did not perform anyalterations to the vehicle.  \n8.   On July 13,2011,Jeff Hammer,a Bureau undercover agent,took thevehicle to_requested a smog inspection,and obtained an estimatefor the inspection.He remained on site during the inspection.At the end of theinspection,respondent gave Mr.Hammer ","cbCaihuyc70OSBPQ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihuyc70OSBPQ","pdf",2857929,"English","# PROPOSED DECISION\n# SUMMARY\n# FACTUAL FINDINGS\n# Undercover Operation","[{\"question\":\"What action does the complainant request against the respondent?\",\"answer\":\"The complainant seeks to discipline the respondent’s license based on alleged improper smog inspection performance.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the decision conclude regarding discipline for the alleged inspection issue?\",\"answer\":\"The decision concludes that no cause exists to discipline the respondent’s license, because the complainant’s contention does not establish a basis for discipline.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the undercover vehicle testing relate to the disputed visual inspection?\",\"answer\":\"After the undercover inspection, the vehicle underwent California emissions testing at the documentation lab and produced PASS overall results, indicating compliance with requirements for issuance of a certificate of compliance.\"}]","BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS - PROPOSED DECISION | PDF"]