IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Transportation : Service, Inc., : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1709 C.D. 2016

: Argued: May 1, 2017 Pennsylvania Public Utility : Commission, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: Ju ly 3 , 2017

Pennsylvania Transport ation Service, Inc. (PTS) petitions for review

of an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), which granted

, in part, PTS’s petition for reconsideration of staff action (Petition). PTS filed the

Petition in response to a PUC decision, which m odified the description of

operating rights in PTS’s certificate of public convenience. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

PTS is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the for

- hire

transportation (taxicab) business . On April 3, 2015, PTS purchase d certain call or

demand (taxi) rights issued by the PUC to Concord Limousine, Inc. t/a Concord

Coach Taxi (Concord). The rights PTS purchased on April 3, 2015, were

originally transferred to Concord from Bost on C oach

- Pennsylvania Corp. t/d/b/a

Boston Coa ch (Boston). With regard to the taxi rights tran s f erred from Boston to2

Concord

, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an opinion and order dated

January 14, 2000

, describing the transferred rights as follows:

To transport as a common carrier by motor v ehicle, persons upon call or demand: (1) in the Bala

- Cynwyd Section of Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, between the Schuylkill River on the east and Wynnewood Avenue on the west and extending to Rock Hill Road, Bryn Mawr Avenue and Montgomery Ave nue on the north and from points in that area to other points in Pennsylvania, and vice versa; all transportation to be on call by telephone to the carrier’s office; and (2) in that part of the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, beginning at the in ter section of City Line Avenue and 52n d Street, thence continuing sout h along 52nd Street to Wynnefield Avenue, thence continuing south along Wynnefield Avenue to Belmont Avenue, thence continuing south along Belmont Avenue to its intersection with Montgom ery Avenue, thence continuing in an easterly direction along Montgomery Avenue until the same intersects with the Schuylkill River, thence continuing [in] a northerly direction to City Line Avenue and the place of beginning; all transportation to be upon c all by telephone to the carrier’s office.

(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at P60

- P 61 .) 1

On April 3, 2015, PTS filed with the PUC an application for approval

of the transfer of rights from Concord to PTS. On March 1, 2016, 2 the Secretary of

1 Citations to the reproduced record are consistent with the pagination in the reproduced record filed by PTS , which does n ot conform to the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 2173.

2 The Secretary of the PUC originally issued a letter on February 5, 2016; however, that

letter cont ained typographical errors. The Secretary of the PUC issued a corrected letter dated March 1, 2016. The typographical errors and the dates of the letters are not relevant to the instant appeal.3

the PUC iss ued a letter notifying PTS that its application was approved, but that

the PUC had modified the description of the transferred operating rights.

Specifically, the March 1, 2016 letter omitted the portion of the description of

operating rights in the C ity of Philadelphia (the City) and included the following

note:
The transferor’s authority originally also included an area

in the city and county of Philadelphia. That area now falls under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Parking Authority [(PPA)] , and this Commission has no power to grant the transfer of that portion of the original authority. Additionally, the words vice versa were included by error in the description. These words were only in the transferor’s tariff, and not in the original or der granting authority; therefore, vice versa has not been included.

(R.R. at P67.) 3

On March 21, 2016, PTS filed a “petition for reconsideration of staff

action” with the PUC, arguing that the PUC did not have authority to make

material changes to the transferred operating rights. On September 15, 2016, the

3 Specifically, the following language was omitted from the description of operating rights:

and (2) in that part of the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, beginning at the intersection of City Line Avenue and 52nd Street, thence continuing sou t h along 52nd Street to Wynnefield Avenue, thence continuing sou t h along Wynnefield Avenue to Belmont Avenue, thence continuing south along Belmon t Avenue to its intersection with Montgomery Avenue, thence continuing in an easterly direction along Montgomery Avenue until the same intersects with the Schuylkill River, thence continuing [in] a northerly direction to City Line Avenue and the place of b eginning; all transportation to be upon call by telephone to the
carrier’s office.

(R.R. at P61.) Throughout this opinion, we refer to the omitted portion of the transferred operational rights as the “Philadelphia rights.”4

PUC granted PT S ’s request, in part, by restoring the vice versa rights excluded

pursuant to the March 1, 2016 letter. The PUC, however, explained that the PPA,

not the PUC, had authority to alter o r approve a transfer of operational rights

within the City

. 4 PTS subsequently filed in this Court a petition for review of the

PUC’s September 15, 2016 order.

In its petition for review

, 5 PTS argues that the PUC violated its right

to due process by par tially revoking PTS’ s operational rights without holding a

hearing on the issue of whether the Philadelphia rights should be excluded from the

certificate. The PUC contends that it had no jurisdiction to include the

Philadelphia rights because the authori ty to grant operational rights within the C ity

is vested solely in the PPA

.

Prior to 2004, the PUC was the sole agency responsible for the

regulation of taxicab operations throughout Pennsylvania, including the City . With

respect to taxicabs operating on a City

- wide basis , the PUC’s duties and

4 On December 16, 2016, the P UC issued a notice dismissing PTS’s application to begin service for failure to comply with certain PUC requirements within 60 days of the “Commission Order/Secretarial Letter” approving PTS’s application, presumably r eferring to the September 15, 2016 ord er of the PUC. (R.R. at P147.) On January 3, 2017, PTS filed a petition for reconsideration of the December 16, 2016 notice, asserting that because it had petitioned this Court for review of the September 15, 2016 opinion and order, that order was not ye t final

, and, thus, PTS was not obligated to satisfy the PUC requirements until the final disposition of the instant matter. The disposition of PTS’s petition for reconsideration has not been made part of the record and has no bearing on our decision in the instant matter.

5 Appellate review of a PUC order is limited to determining whether a constitutional violation, an error of law, or a violation of PUC procedure has occurred and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence

. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Popowsky v. Pa. Pub.

Util

. Com m ’ n , 910 A.2d 38, 48 (Pa. 2006)

.5

responsibilities were set forth in what was commonly known as the Medallion

Act, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 2401

- 2416

. 6 Concord and PTS, however , are considered

“partial rights” taxicab companies , meaning they have been grante d authority to

operate in part

, but not in all

, of the City. As partial rights taxicab companies , both

Concord and PTS were not subject to the provisions of t he Medallion A ct, but

were, instead, regulated by the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 101

- 3316.

In 2004, the Legislature enacted an amendment to the Parking

Authorities Law (Law), 7 which

, inter alia , repealed the Medallion Act and

transferred jurisdiction and reg ulation of taxicab service within the City from the

PUC to the PPA

. The amendment is commonly referred to as Act 94. 8 The PUC

retained jurisdiction over the regulation of taxicab service throughout the

remaining portions of the Commonwealth.

We have p reviously held that the PUC continues to regulate taxicab

companies with pre

- Act 94 rights to the extent that they operate outside of the City.

Germantown Cab Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n , 97 A.3d 410 , 417

( Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). We have also held that the PPA r egulates taxicab companies

with pre

- Act 94 rights to the extent that they operate within the City. Bucks Cnty.

Servs., Inc. v. Phila

. Parkin g Auth.

, 104 A.3d 604 , 611 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Thus,

the Legislature, by enacting Act 94, created a regulatory sys tem in which the PUC

6 Repealed by the Act of December 30, 2002, P.L. 2001.

7 53 Pa. C.S. §§ 5501

- 5517, 5701

- 5745. The Law is part of the General Local

Government Code. See 53 Pa. C.S. § 101.

8 Act of Ju ly 16, 2004, P.L. 758

.6

and the PPA share jurisdiction over the operation of taxicab companies to the

extent that such companies operate both within and without the City.

Because taxicab service is considered a public utility, taxicab

operators must acquire a certificate of public convenience prior to beginning

operations. 66 Pa. C.S. § 1101; Ronald Cab, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util.

Comm’n

, 76 A.3d 74, 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). After approving a transfer of

operational rights between taxicab companies , the P UC must set forth and describe

the limits of the territory in which the acquiring taxi cab company may provide

service

— i.e.

, a description of the taxicab company’s operational rights.

Susquehanna Area Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n , 91 1 A.2d 612

, 619 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied

, 9 23 A.2d 4 12 (Pa. 2007)

.

With respect to the transfer of “ partial rights ” within the City

,
Section 5 711(c)(5) of the Law

, 53 Pa. C.S. § 5711(c)(5), provides:

The transfer of a certificate of public convenienc e, by any means or device, shall be subject to the prior approval of the [PPA] which may, in its sole or peculiar discretion as it deems appropriate, attach such conditions, including the appropriate allocation of proceeds, as it may find to be necessary o r proper.
( Emphasis added .) Similarly, Section 1103( a) of the Public Utilit y Code,

66 Pa. C.S. § 1103(a), authorizes the PUC to grant certificates of public

conveni en ce to taxicab companies operating outside of the City. 9 The PUC has

9 Section 1103(a ) of the Public Utility Code provides:

Every application for a certificate of public convenience shall be made to the commission in writing, be verified by oath or affirmation, and be in such form, and contain such information, as the commission may require by its regulations. A certificate of public convenience shall be granted by order of the commission, only if the commission shall find or determine that the granting of (Footnote continued on next page...)7

authority to revoke or amend certificates of public convenience upon due cause

being shown. P.D.J. Cab Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n , 501 A.2d 342 , 344

- 45

( Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

PTS argues that the PUC violated its right to due process by partially

revokin g its operati ng rights without holding a hearing on the issue of whether the

Philadelphia rights should be excluded from the description of operating rights

. PTS’s argument is founded on the presumption that it properly filed an application

to approve the transfer of operatin g rights and was wrongfully denied part of the

acquired operating rights without notice and an opportunity to be heard. PTS’s

argument , however, fails because it is based on the faulty assumption that the PUC

had authority to grant th ose rights even if it held a hearing on PTS’s application.

As we have previously held, this is not the case.

In Bucks County

, we reaffirmed “this Court’ s prior rulings confirming

the [PPA ’ s ] regulatory reach with respect to [taxicab companies] when providing

taxicab service within the City. ” Bucks Cnty. , 104 A.3d at 609. We did not

(continued...)

such certifi cate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. The commission, in granting such certificate, may impose such conditions as it may deem to be just and reasonable. In every case, the commission shall make a finding or determination in writing, stating whether or not its approval is granted. Any holder of a certificate of public convenience, exercising the authority conferred by such certificate, shall be deemed to have waived any and all objections to the t erms and conditions of such

certificate.

See also Lehigh Valley Transp. Serv s. , Inc. v. P a. Pub . Util. Com m’ n , 56 A.3d 49, 55 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2012) (describing procedure and requirements for application to PUC for certificate of public convenience.).8

conclude that the PPA’s authority was limited to enforcing violations of PPA

regulations within the City or th at the PPA had authority only to issue new
certificates of public convenience with ope rating rights within the City. We also

opined that Section 5 711 (c)(2.1) of the Law, 53 Pa. C.S. § 5711(c)(2.1)

,

d oes not demand that the [PPA] issue a certificate of pub lic convenience to those companies that had existing service rights within the City prior to Act 94’ s passage. Instead, this section appears to allow the [PPA] to issue certificates of public convenience to provide

non

- citywide call or demand service. B ecause, however, [taxicab c ompanies ] had that author ity prior to the passage of Act 94, they were not required to obtain, and the [PPA] was not required to issue, a new certificate of public convenience.

Id

. Thus

, the portion of those taxicab companies’ operati n g rights within the City

has been within the jurisdiction of the PPA since the effective date of Act 94 , but

the PPA was not required to issue separate certificates of public convenience to

taxicab companies with existing rights. Only the PPA, how ever, has the authority

to issue a new certificate of public convenience that include s rights within the City

.

Moreover, it does not appear that the PUC expressly deprived PTS of

its operational rights by omitting the Philadelphia rights. 10 “Key to the

determination of whether a party has been denied procedural due process is

10 To t he extent PTS argues that Concord was somehow deprived of its due process rights by the PUC’s omission of the Philadelphia rights from PTS’s certificate of public convenience, such an argument is irrelevant to the instant matter as Concord is not a party t o this action and PTS may not seek to enforce the rights of a third party on appeal. See Pa. Dental Ass’n v. Dep’t of Health , 461 A.2d 329, 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (“One may not claim standing, ordinarily, to vindicate the constitutional rights of some third party [unless] the relationship of the litigant and the third party is inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant seeks to pursue and there is some obstacle to the assertion by the third party of his own right

. ” (internal citation omitted) )

.9

whether that party has suffered demonstrable prejudice.” Sobat v. Borough of

Midland , 141 A.3d 618, 627 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). The March 1, 2016 letter

from the PUC noted only th at the PUC was without authority to grant a transfer of

the Philadelphia rights. The PUC did not express that i t was revoking or

modifying PTS’s rights to exclude the Philadelphia rights. Rather, the

March 1, 2016 letter seemed to indicate that PTS would simply need to seek

additional approval from the PPA f or the transfer of the Philadelphia rights . Thus,

PTS fails to demonstrate that the PUC’s March 1, 2016 letter caused it

“demonstrable prejudice” simply by noting that PTS cannot obtain all of the rel ief

that it seeks from the PUC

.

T he PPA ha s held complete authority over taxicab companies

providing service within the City since Act 94 went into effect . We now clarify

that where a taxicab company possessing operational rights both within and

without the City seeks to transfer those rights to another entity , the PPA has

exclusive authority to grant, deny, or impose conditions on the transfer of the

portion of the operational rights within the City. 11 The PUC retains authority over

the transfer of opera tional rights outside of the City.

11 During these proceedings, the PUC question ed whether Concord’s Philadelphia rights

had been cancelled by the PPA pursuant to a July 14, 2016 decision and order in the matter of Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Concord Limousine, Inc. , Docket No. C

- 16

- 01

- 035. On May 24, 2017, PTS filed an application with this Court

, seeking a remand to the PUC for further consideration and the opportunity to be heard regarding the impact of the PPA’s July 14, 2016

decision and order on PTS’s application for the trans fer of rights from Concord to PTS. By o rder dated June 8, 2017, this Court denied PTS’s application. We note, however, that to the extent that PTS seeks to challenge the PPA’s July 14, 2016 decision and order and/or seek approval of

the transfer of the P hiladelphia rights from Concord to PTS, the PUC does not appear to be the proper forum

.10 Accordingly, we affirm the PUC’s September 15, 2 016 order.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Transportation : Service, Inc., : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1709 C.D. 2016

: Pennsylvania Public Utility : Commission, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3 rd day of July , 201 7

, the order of the Pennsylvania

Public Utility Commission

, dated September 15, 2016

, is hereby AFFIRMED.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge