NOTICES
Order
[33 Pa.B. 1906] Public Meeting held
March 6, 2003Commissioners Present: Glen R. Thomas, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairperson; Aaron Wilson, Jr.; Terrance J. Fitzpatrick; Kim Pizzingrilli
Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff v. Corecomm Pennsylvania, Inc. (2001.0352); Doc. No. C-20027758
Corecomm Pennsylvania, Inc. Petition to Reinstate; A-310801
Order By the Commission:
On May 23, 2002, Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff filed a Formal Complaint against Corecomm Pennsylvania, Inc. (Corecomm), an IXC reseller certificated at A-310801. In the Complaint, Prosecutory Staff alleged that the Commission sent by certified mail prior written notices to Corecomm that its 2000 Annual Report was due. The complaint charged that Corecomm violated 66 Pa.C.S. § 504 (relating to reports by public utilities) by failing to file its 2000 Annual Report. The Complaint requested that the Commission issue an order canceling Corecomm's certificate of public convenience for failure to file its 2000 Annual Report.
According to the United States Postal Service return receipt, the Complaint was unclaimed because the forwarding order expired. As a result of Corecomm's failure to respond to the Complaint, the Commission entered a Default Order on October 29, 2002, that sustained the Complaint and cancelled Corecomm's certificate of public convenience. The notice of the Default Order was published at 32 Pa.B. 5597 (November 9, 2002).
Subsequent to the issuance of the Default Order and cancellation of Corecomm's certificate effective December 9, 2002, Corecomm filed both its 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports on December 12, 2002. After receiving these annual reports, Commission staff notified Corecomm through a telephone conversation of the option to petition for reinstatement.
On January 13, 2003, Corecomm filed a Letter-Petition to Reinstate its certificate of public convenience. In its Petition, Corecomm states that the delinquent filing of its 2000 Annual Report was due in part to the resignation of its regulatory attorney and a reorganization within its company. Corecomm states that it has taken steps to ensure that it timely complies with future filing deadlines. Corecomm requests reinstatement since it has now filed both its 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports.
It is well-settled that decisions such as whether to grant a petition for reinstatement are left to the Commission's discretion and will be reversed on appeal only if that discretion is abused. Hoskins Taxi Service v. Pa. P.U.C., 486 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). In ruling upon a reinstatement petition, it is incumbent upon this Commission to examine all relevant factors to reach an equitable result. Medical Transportation, Inc., 57 Pa. P.U.C. 79 (1983).
The Commission has identified five factors that are particularly relevant to the adjudication of a petition to reinstate: 1) the amount of time that elapsed between the cancellation of the certificate of public convenience and the filing of the petition; 2) whether the petitioner has a record of habitually violating the Public Utility Code; 3) the reasonableness of the excuse given for the violation that caused the certificate to be canceled; 4) whether the petitioner has implemented procedures to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances giving rise to the cancellation; and 5) whether the petitioner is current in the payment of all Commission fines and assessments. Re: M.S. Carriers, Inc., Docket No. A-00110601 (May 4, 1999).
In considering the first factor, we note that only approximately 5 weeks elapsed between the effective date of the cancellation on December 9, 2002, and Corecomm's request for reinstatement on January 13, 2003.
In regard to the second factor, Corecomm does not have a record of habitually violating the Public Utility Code. Corecomm has had no additional complaints issued against it since the issuance of its certificate in 1999.
In considering the third and fourth factors, Corecomm states that its failure to file its 2000 Annual Report was due to reorganizational and personnel changes. Corecomm states that it has taken steps to ensure that its regulatory compliance remains in good standing. Corecomm's excuse for the violation appears reasonable. The fact that Corecomm has now complied with our reporting requirements and has taken steps to ensure future compliance militates toward reinstatement.
The fifth factor requires that all outstanding fines and/or assessments be paid prior to reinstatement. A review of Commission records shows that Corecomm has no unpaid fines or assessments.
Based upon the foregoing, we grant Corecomm's petition for reinstatement. However, we caution Corecomm that in the future annual reports must be timely filed and all Commission correspondence must be answered in a timely manner. Corecomm is hereby put on notice that any future failure to submit an Annual Report may subject Corecomm to penalties under 66 Pa.C.S. § 3301 (relating to civil penalties for violations), or it may otherwise be required to file a new application along with the applicable $350 fee. Therefore,
It Is Ordered That:
1. The Letter-Petition to Reinstate filed by Corecomm Pennsylvania, Inc. at C-20027758 on January 13, 2003, is hereby granted.
2. The certificate of public convenience held by Corecomm Pennsylvania, Inc. at A-310801is hereby reinstated.
3. The Secretary cause a copy of this Order to be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
JAMES J. MCNULTY,
Secretary
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-689. Filed for public inspection April 11, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
