[41 Pa.B. 1717]
[Saturday, March 26, 2011]
[Continued from previous Web Page]
SUBCHAPTER F. TAXICAB LEASES 57. Section 1017.62. Taxicab leases.—Reasonableness.
A commentator believes this section and specifically Paragraph (c)(9) do not reflect the varied relationships between drivers and medallion owners. There are DOVs, multiple drivers and different types of leases. PPA should review this section and explain how it appropriately accommodates taxicab leases.
58. Section 1017.63. Wages, maximum lease amounts and uniform rates.—Consistency with statute; Need.
Applicability
Subsections (a), (b) and (c) essentially restate statutory provisions in regulation. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5720(a) states ''each medallion owner shall pay at least a prevailing minimum wage rate or, in the alternative, charge at most a prevailing maximum lease amount to the drivers of its taxicab, as determined by the authority upon investigation.'' Also, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5720(b) states that ''all taxicabs . . . shall charge a uniform rate to passengers, as determined by the authority upon investigation.'' Why are Subsections (a), (b) and (c) needed in regulation?
Employee benefits
Employee benefits are addressed in 53 Pa.C.S. § 5720(a) which states, in part, ''. . . the minimum wage rate and the maximum lease amount, as established by the authority, may include employee benefits.'' (Emphasis added.) Subsection (c) of the regulation states ''Upon investigation, the Authority may establish, by order, prevailing employee benefits for taxicab drivers, in addition to a minimum wage.'' (Emphasis added.) The phrase ''in addition to a minimum wage'' implies the minimum wage and the employee benefits are separate. PPA should explain how the regulation is consistent with 53 Pa.C.S. § 5720(a).
CHAPTER 1019. DISPATCHERS 59. Section 1019.2. Ineligible persons for dispatcher service.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Paragraph (2)
This paragraph states an applicant is ineligible to be a dispatcher if:
The applicant is incapable of providing dispatching services through persons or communication devices that speak, read and write the English language sufficiently to clearly communicate with the public and respond to Authority investigations and comply with reporting requirements of the Authority's regulations.It is not clear what standard this provision sets. How is it determined, by whom and when, that the applicant can or cannot ''speak, read and write the English language sufficiently to clearly communicate with the public''? This provision should either be deleted or rewritten to provide a clear standard of compliance for both PPA and persons applying to be dispatchers.
60. Section 1019.8. Dispatcher requirements.—Economic impact; Reasonableness; Need.
Paragraph (6) requires dispatchers to have at least one display advertisement in a telephone book and a website which displays information necessary to order a taxicab. A commentator believes that dispatchers should not be required to do both. Can taxicab service be effectively provided using just a website? What is the need for requiring these types of advertisements in both the telephone book and on the web?
CHAPTER 1021. TAXICAB DRIVERS 61. Section 1021.3. Maximum number of taxicab driver's certificates.—Statutory authority; Economic impact; Reasonableness; Need.
Maximum of 3,000 taxicab driver's certificates
Subsection (a) establishes a maximum of 3,000 taxicab driver's certificates, and Paragraph (b)(2) states that PPA will accept new applications only when the number of taxicab drivers is below 3,000. Under 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5711(c)(2) and 5713(b), PPA can issue a maximum of 1,600 certificates of public convenience for taxicab service (and five certificates for limited service).
Based on public comment, the limitation to 3,000 taxicab driver's certificates is among the most controversial provisions in the regulation. One commentator supports the 3,000 driver cap, stating it will end exploitation of drivers. Many other commentators question the statutory basis for a limit and how the number of 3,000 was determined. They point out that this provision could stop unemployed people and underemployed people from working in the taxicab industry. They are concerned that inactive drivers who hold certificates would preclude new drivers from getting certificates. A commentator requests that PPA develop an analysis of drivers to contribute towards understanding how many drivers the region needs, but ultimately wants the marketplace to determine the number of drivers.
We believe the commentators have raised legitimate questions with the maximum of 3,000 taxicab driver's certificates. PPA should either delete this provision or establish its authority and enforcement powers to set a maximum number of drivers. If PPA establishes that authority, it should explain why a maximum is needed and in the public interest. PPA should explain why a maximum of 3,000 taxicab drivers is the optimum number of drivers to serve the interests of drivers, medallion owners and the public. In addition, PPA should provide any studies it has done in determining that the number of 3,000 drivers is in the best interest of all who provide and use taxicab service.
62. Section 1021.4. Ineligible persons for taxicab driver certificate.—Reasonableness; Need.
Paragraph (6) requires a driver to have ''. . . a driving history in the United States of at least 1 continuous year. . . .'' A commentator believes it is unnecessary to prohibit persons who were drivers in other countries, such as Canada, and have lived in the United States for less than one year. Why does the regulation require a driving history in the United States of at least one continuous year?
63. Section 1021.5. Standards for obtaining a taxicab driver's certificate.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Criminal history report and record
Paragraph (b)(6) references both a criminal history report and a criminal history record. ''Criminal history report'' is defined in Section 1001.10, whereas a ''criminal history record'' is defined in the Criminal History Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S.A §§ 9101, et seq. Did PPA intend for there to be a distinction between the two phrases? If not, then only one should be used in the final-form regulation.
Reports from each jurisdiction
Paragraphs (b)(6) and (8) require criminal history and driver history reports from each jurisdiction, other than Pennsylvania, in which the applicant resided in the five preceding years. A commentator believes these provisions may be unnecessarily burdensome for immigrants who would have to get this information from foreign governments. We recognize the safety aspect for the riding public of the criminal history and driver histories of applicants. Nonetheless, if a person immigrated legally into the United States, would a sufficient criminal history check have already occurred by the United States government? We request an explanation of what specific documentation PPA will accept from foreign governments, how this documentation can be obtained, and possible costs imposed on the applicant for requesting this information. We also request an explanation of the need for criminal checks for persons who have immigrated legally.
Other rights in which the applicant has a controlling interest
Subsection (b) provides a list of all the information that must be included with an application for a taxicab driver's certificate. Paragraph (b)(10) requires a list of all PPA or PUC certificates or ''other rights in which the applicant has any controlling interest.'' Subsection (b) does not explain whether this includes rights pertaining to interests unrelated to taxicabs. This provision is vague and the final-form regulation needs to define what comprises ''other rights.''
Current on all reports
Paragraph (b)(11) requires the applicant to include a written statement verifying certain things. Subparagraph (b)(11)(iii) requires verification that the applicant is current on all ''reports'' due to PPA. It is unclear what ''reports'' PPA is referring to. To improve clarity, we recommend that the final-form regulation include cross-references to the appropriate sections of the regulation relating to reports.
64. Section 1021.9. Taxicab driver test.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section explains the development by PPA of a test for taxicab drivers. However, it is unclear in Paragraph (c)(5) how it would be determined that a person has appropriately ''demonstrated'' that they can read and write English. The final-form regulation should clarify this issue.
65. Section 1021.10. Expiration and renewal of certificate.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Redundant provision
This section discusses the process for expiration and renewal of a driver's certificate. Subsection (a) establishes that certificates expire one year from the date of issuance and are annually renewed, all of which is already contained in Section 1011.3. Therefore, Subsection (a) is redundant and should be removed from the final-form regulation. We also recommend that to improve clarity, Subsections (b)—(d) be moved to Section 1011.3.
In good standing
In Subsection (b), who determines and how is it established that a taxicab driver is ''in good standing''? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
66. Section 1021.12. Additional requirements.—Need; Economic impact; Reasonableness; Protection of the public safety.
Subsection (b)
This subsection states:
Each taxicab driver shall provide a weekly average of at least 24 hours of taxicab service for each year the taxicab driver's certificate is issued and a minimum aggregate number of 1,248 hours of taxicab service each year.We question what this requirement accomplishes. Why is there a need to exclude drivers who may be able to work just one day a week while holding down another job? Why exclude a driver who could fill in for a regular driver who is sick? PPA should explain why this provision is needed and reasonable. PPA should also explain the economic impact of the recordkeeping by the driver and the cost of enforcement of this provision by PPA.
In addition, it is our understanding from public comment that PPA has used a maximum number of hours in the past for safety reasons and quality of service reasons. Why wasn't a maximum number of hours included in the regulation?
67. Section 1021.15. Taxicab driver reports after accident.—Reasonableness; Need; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section describes the necessary steps taken by a taxicab driver after an accident. Paragraph (2) requires a driver to take ''necessary precautions to prevent further accidents'' and Paragraph (3) requires a driver to ''render reasonable assistance to injured persons.'' Because terms in these two paragraphs are vague, implementation may result in drivers acting outside the scope of their licensed duties. For example, a driver should not be expected to stop a fire or render assistance to injured persons without a medical license or proper training. Therefore, the final-form regulation should specifically explain the types of ''precautions'' and ''assistance'' a driver is expected to administer.
68. Section 1021.17. Partial-rights taxicab driver log.—Clarity; Reasonableness; Need.
Subsection (b)
Paragraph (b)(11) requires a service log to include ''other information as may be required by this subpart.'' This provision is vague. Subpart B is lengthy and it would be difficult to determine what other information may be required. Paragraph (b)(11) should either be deleted or replaced with specific information that is required to be placed on the log.
Subsection (f)
This subsection states that PPA may require use of a specific trip sheet form and will provide it on the website. Why is Subsection (f) necessary given that Subsection (b) provides specific information that must be included in the service log? Under what circumstances would PPA require the specific trip sheet form in Subsection (f) in addition to the requirements in Subsection (b)?
CHAPTER 1025. INSURANCE REQUIRED 69. Section 1025.2. Insurance forms and procedures.—Clarity; Reasonableness.
Paragraph (c)(2) states that PPA may prescribe additional information and content necessary for endorsements and notices required by this section. This provision is vague and would allow changes to be made to requirements outside the rulemaking process. We recommend deleting Paragraph (c)(2).
70. Section 1025.3. Insurance required.—Economic impact; Feasibility; Implementation procedures; Reasonableness.
Subsection (b) sets forth the following insurance requirements:
The liability insurance maintained by a taxicab certificate holder shall be in an amount of at least $50,000 to cover liability for bodily injury, death or property damage incurred in an accident arising from authorized service. The $50,000 minimum coverage is split coverage in the amounts of $20,000 bodily injury per person, $40,000 bodily injury per accident and $10,000 property damage per accident. This coverage must include first party medical benefits in the amount of $25,000 and first party wage loss benefits in the amount of $25,000 for passengers and pedestrians. Except as to the required amount of coverage, these benefits must conform to 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701—1799.7 (relating to Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). First party coverage of the taxicab driver of taxicabs must meet the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1711 (relating to required benefits).Commentators stated that insurance currently costs approximately $4,000 per taxicab and that implementation of this provision could increase rates as much as 200 to 300% mostly attributable to the increase in first party benefits, commonly referred to as ''PIP.'' Insurers commented that the increased limits are so significant that it could affect the number of insurers willing to write these policies.
PPA should provide an analysis of the insurance limits in the final-form regulation regarding the feasibility of multiple insurers providing the insurance required by the regulation and the affordability of the insurance for the regulated community.
71. Section 1025.5. Standards for adjustment and payment of claims.—Clarity.
The opening paragraph of this section requires common carriers to ''comply with fair claims settlement and compromise practices.'' The regulation should provide a direct citation to these practices so that the regulated community knows how to comply.
CHAPTER 1027. SALE OF RIGHTS 72. Section 1027.2. Definitions.—Need; Clarity.
Medallion taxicab certificate
Chapter 1027 is not the first time this term is used in the regulation. Therefore, to improve clarity, we recommend that this definition be moved, consistent with our comment on Section 1001.10.
Sale
What does PPA consider ''securities'' and ''other ownership interests''? Do these include securities and interests unrelated to taxicabs? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
73. Section 1027.3. Authority approval of sale of rights.—Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
This section defines the sale of transferable rights. Subsection (b) states that: ''The sale of any number of securities or other ownership interest . . . will be considered a sale. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) According to subsequent sections, like Sections 1027.6 and 1027.7, a ''sale'' requires PPA approval of an application and various documents. In regard to similar provisions for limousines, Philadelphia Regional Limousine Association (PRLA) contends that by requiring an application for ''any'' number of securities, this could result in an unreasonable burden on the ability of a corporate entity to freely transfer stock. We recommend that the final-form regulation specify the number of securities that would constitute a sale. In addition, the final-form regulation should explain what ''ownership interests'' are subject to a sale.
74. Section 1027.6. Application for sale of transferable rights.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures.
Subsection (d) pertains to the sale of multiple rights. It states that the amount of transfer fee imposed will be determined ''based on the higher of the aggregate value of the sale or the transfer fee for each right. . . .'' PPA should explain how it determined this was a reasonable method of calculation.
75. Section 1027.9. Financial fitness generally.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section explains what documents PPA will review to determine the financial fitness of a proposed buyer for a sale. We have two concerns.
First, Paragraph (a)(1) states that PPA will review bank statements of accounts holding ''not less than the greater of $5,000 or 2% of the sale price in unencumbered and available funds. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) PPA should explain how it determined these were appropriate account holdings for consideration, and why the funds must have been in the account for six months.
Second, in Paragraph (a)(4), why must a buyer demonstrate the absence of any civil judgments against the parties required to submit a criminal history report?
76. Section 1027.10. Regulatory compliance review.—Clarity.
In Subsection (a), what is a ''regulatory compliance record''? The final-form regulation should explain this term.
CHAPTER 1029. BROKERS 77. Section 1029.4. Ineligible persons for broker certification.—Statutory authority.
Consistent with our comment on Section 1011.5, we question how PPA will enforce Paragraph (1) if a person is arrested but has not been found guilty of a crime. Under what authority can PPA classify a person as ineligible who has been arrested and is awaiting trial?
78. Section 1029.6. Broker training.—Consistency with statute; Protection of the public welfare; Reasonableness.
Subsection (a)
This subsection states that PPA will schedule and conduct training. PPA should explain how this is consistent with the Act.
Subsection (b)
This subsection states broker training will consist of a minimum of two hours of instruction. How is two hours of training sufficient to perform the duties of a broker? Also, does PPA accept any national licensure for brokers? PPA should explain how the requirements for broker training are adequate.
SUBPART C. LIMOUSINES.
CHAPTER 1051. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 79. Section 1051.2. Definitions.—Consistency with the statute; Reasonableness; Clarity.
Common carrier
This definition states:
A common carrier by motor vehicle, as defined in 66 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions), transporting passengers. . . .This definition is complicated and vague. Under 66 Pa.C.S. § 102, there are two entirely different and separate definitions for the terms ''common carrier'' and ''common carrier by motor vehicle.'' Therefore, it is not clear what the definition in the regulation describes and whether it encompasses carriers that are not under PPA's jurisdiction.
We recognize the Act uses the term ''common carrier by motor vehicle'' in 53 Pa.C.S. § 5703(g). PPA should consider whether the term ''common carrier'' should be used in the regulation. If the term is retained, PPA should explain why it is the appropriate term and clarify its definition for the final-form regulation.
Key employee
The term ''other entity identified by the Authority'' is vague and the final-form regulation should provide examples of this term.
Limousine
The proposed regulation defines this term as ''A vehicle meeting the definition provided in section 5701 of the act (relating to definitions).'' However, as the PA Bus Association (PA Bus) correctly points out, this section of the Act does not include a definition for ''limousine.'' The final-form regulation should define ''limousine'' without cross-referencing the Act.
Limousine service
The proposed regulation defines this term as: ''The transportation of passengers or offering to transport passengers in a limousine through a certificate or registration issued by the Authority.'' However, this definition is inconsistent with the statutory definition. Section 5701 of the Act defines ''limousine service'' as:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a motor vehicle providing any of the following services:(i) Local, nonscheduled common carrier service for passengers on an exclusive basis for compensation.(ii) Common carrier service for passengers for compensation:(A) From any airport, railroad station or hotel located in whole or in part in a city of the first class; or(B) To any airport, railroad station or hotel located in whole or in part in a city of the first class from a point within the city of the first class.(2) The term does not include any of the following:(i) Taxicab service.(ii) Service that was otherwise exempt from the jurisdiction of the commission prior to the effective date of this subparagraph.(iii) Other paratransit service.(iv) Employee commuter van pooling.We recommend that the final-form regulation reference the statutory definition.
A commentator states that certain ''chauffeured services'' are not properly classified as ''limousine services.'' According to the commentator, there are circumstances where passengers are transported in the same manner as a limousine service, but the bill is submitted to a third party (for example, an insurance company). The final-form regulation needs to clarify whether these types of services would be required to comply with the regulation.
Moving violations
The definition should read: ''Any debt owed to the Commonwealth or one of. . . .'' The word ''of'' should be added to the final-form regulation.
Regulated person
This definition states, ''A certificate holder, broker, limousine driver, or other person subject to the act, this part, or an order of the Authority.'' (Emphasis added.) We recommend deleting the phrase ''this part or an order of the Authority.'' The authority for the regulation (Part II) and PPA orders are derived from the Act. Therefore, we suggest rephrasing this definition so that it is clear that PPA will not be establishing ''regulated persons'' by regulation or order beyond the bounds of the Act.
Rights
What does the phrase ''other authorization'' refer to? The final-form regulation should clarify this issue.
Stretched vehicle
This definition states that a ''stretched'' vehicle is one that accommodates 16 passengers or more, including the driver. However, a commentator suggests that if a vehicle has more than 16 passengers it is regulated by federal law. We request that PPA explain how the definition is consistent with federal law, and if necessary, amend the definition.
80. Section 1051.3. Annual rights renewal process.—Reasonableness; Need; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section describes the process for annual rights renewal for limousine drivers' certificates. We raise seven issues.
First, Paragraph (a)(1) states that ''A certificate will expire on July 1 of each year.'' We question how it is reasonable to apply that date to every certificate awarded. If a certificate is awarded in June, how can it still require a July 1st renewal? In the Preamble to the final-form regulation, PPA needs to explain the significance of the July 1st expiration date.
Second, Paragraph (a)(2) states that a limousine driver's certificate will expire one year from the date of its issuance or renewal. However, it is unclear why PPA chose a one-year expiration since most licenses are issued for a longer time period (for example, PA drivers' licenses are issued for a period in excess of one year). PPA should explain how it determined that the one-year expiration was appropriate.
Third, Paragraph (b)(2) states that driver certificates that have been expired for 60 days or more will be deemed cancelled. How did PPA determine that 60 days was an appropriate timeframe? This subsection also does not state whether the driver will be provided with notice that the certificate was deemed cancelled. The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
Fourth, in Paragraph (c)(2), under what circumstances would renewal forms require the submission of additional documents or information to conform to an ''order of the Authority''? The final-form regulation should provide examples of such instances.
Fifth, Subparagraph (c)(3)(i) requires certain renewal forms for limousine certificates to be filed on or before May 15th of each year. Since the proposed regulation requires limousine certificates to expire on July 1, has PPA considered whether six weeks is enough time to review and renew certificates?
Sixth, Subparagraph (c)(3)(ii) requires forms for renewal of driver's certificates to be filed 60 days before expiration. Like Subparagraph (c)(3)(ii), we question whether 60 days allows the driver enough time to submit these forms. PPA should explain how it determined this is an appropriate timeframe.
Finally, Section 1011.3, relating to the annual rights renewal process for taxicabs, includes provisions relating to waivers and suspension of rights. Why does Section 1051.3 not contain similar provisions for limousines?
81. Section 1051.4. Annual assessments and renewal fees.—Fiscal impact; Need; Implementation procedures.
Subsection (a) states that annual assessments or renewal fees are established each year in accordance with the Act. A commentator notes that there is a large difference in the fees imposed by the PUC and the same fees imposed by the PPA (with PPA's being higher). Does PPA discuss its proposed fees with the regulated community before they become effective? The final-form regulation should explain why there appears to be an increased fiscal impact between PPA and PUC regulations for annual assessments and renewal fees.
Paragraph (d)(1) states that any assessments or renewal fees not paid before 3 p.m. on the due date will be considered late. Since offices normally don't close until closer to 5 p.m., what is the need for this deadline?
82. Section 1051.5. Ineligibility due to conviction or arrest.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Subsection (d) states that if criminal prosecution is initiated against a regulated party, the Enforcement Department may seek immediate suspension of rights pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. However, PRLA notes this provision could have consequences for entities not involved in the alleged criminal activity. For example, PRLA states that in the event that a driver is accused of a crime, this subsection would allow PPA to suspend the rights of not only the driver, but also the limousine company, regardless of its non-involvement or whether the offense occurred independent of the driver's employment with the limousine company. The final-form regulation should clearly specify whose ''rights'' would be suspended during a criminal proceeding. In addition, we request an explanation of how PPA can enforce this provision without violating the rights of a limousine driver accused but not convicted of a crime.
83. Section 1051.6. Payment of outstanding fines, fees, penalties and taxes.—Statutory authority; Economic impact.
Subsection (a) specifically mentions payment of assessments, fees, penalties and other payments due under the Act. However, Subsections (b), (c) and (d) address parking violations, moving violations, Commonwealth taxes, city taxes and a Business Privilege License. PPA should delete Subsections (b), (c) and (d) or explain its authority to require information and enforce the provisions in Subsections (b), (c) and (d). PPA should also explain how much of its resources are devoted to these provisions, whether the costs are subsidized by other enforcement agencies and why it is appropriate for PPA and the entities under the Act, and ultimately fare paying customers, to bear the burden of these costs. Finally, PPA should provide an estimate of the cost to the regulated person to provide documentation to the satisfaction of PPA that they have complied with Subsections (b), (c) and (d).
84. Section 1051.7. Facility inspections.—Clarity.
This section requires inspections of ''operating locations'' and a ''facility inspection.'' However, these terms are vague and the final-form regulation should define them.
85. Section 1051.8. Limousine service limitations.—Statutory authority; Need; Reasonableness.
This section discusses limousine service limitations. Subsection (c) states:
This section does not apply to an individual hired by a funeral home to drive an Authority-certified limousine for funeral related services. The funeral service drivers may not be in violation of § 1051.5 (relating to ineligibility due to conviction or arrest), shall submit to a criminal background check by the TLD and evidence possession of a valid State-issued driver's license.This is the first time ''Authority-certified'' limousines for funeral services are mentioned in the regulation. These types of limousines are also not mentioned in the Act. What is PPA's statutory authority to regulate limousines for funeral-related services? Why are these vehicles and drivers not included in Subsection (a)? If they are not properly included under Subsection (a), what is PPA's authority to require compliance with Section 1051.5, and require a criminal background check and possession of a valid driver's license?
86. Section 1051.10. Record retention.—Economic impact; Need; Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (a)
We have two concerns. First, rather than stating ''all records required under the act,'' the regulation should cite the specific sections of the Act for which records must be kept. Second, this subsection requires records to be retained that are ''otherwise kept in the ordinary course of business.'' PPA should either clarify this phrase or delete it.
Subsection (c)
This subsection requires records to be stored in dry areas ''protected by a fire suppression system.'' We have three concerns. First, it is not clear why these records need to be protected by a fire suppression system. What specifically is in these records that requires this level of protection? Also, if the information is that sensitive, why doesn't the regulation require a copy to be filed with PPA?
Second, it is not clear what will meet the requirements for a ''fire suppression system.'' For example, it would appear that fire-proof file cabinets could be sufficient. However, the regulation requires a ''fire suppression system.'' (Emphasis added.) A system may require a sprinkler system at significant cost. We recommend that the regulation clearly establish what meets the requirement for a ''fire suppression system.''
Finally, PPA should provide an estimate of the cost to implement the fire suppression system required by the regulation.
Subsection (d)
This subsection requires electronic records to be ''stored at a location that is separate by at least 1 mile from the office where the record originated.'' The requirement for storage of these records a distance of at least 1 mile from the office means that a business would have to maintain a separate location or pay for this service. PPA should explain the need for storage 1 mile away from the office, the costs imposed by this requirement and why the costs are justified.
Subsection (e)
Will PPA's request for records under this subsection be in writing?
87. Section 1051.12. Interruptions of service.—Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Subsection (a) requires a written statement to the Director when a vehicle is out of service for more than 48 hours. A commentator questions what types of interruptions in service that would include. PPA should explain the need for this provision and what PPA will do with the information.
This section uses the terms ''interruption of service'' and ''suspension of service.'' However, the regulation is not clear regarding what specifically constitutes an interruption of service or suspension of service. The regulation should define these terms so that the regulated community knows what needs to be reported.
88. Section 1051.13. Voluntary suspension of certificate.—Statutory authority; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section discusses the process for a certificate holder to achieve PPA approval for voluntary suspension of their certificate in order to avoid penalties for violations relating to interruptions of service. We raise three issues.
First, the Act only grants PPA the power to rescind or revoke limousine certificates, not suspend them. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5741.1(c)(1). Therefore, what is PPA's statutory authority for permitting this suspension process?
Second, Subsection (a) allows the suspension to occur subject to prior approval by the Director, who may, ''in his sole or peculiar discretion...attach conditions as may be found necessary or proper.'' What does PPA consider ''peculiar discretion''? Also, what kinds of conditions would the Director consider ''necessary or proper''? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
Finally, Subsection (b) states that voluntary suspension of a certificate may occur ''after a report is issued as provided in § 1051.12.'' However, this section does not mention an actual report. Is this subsection referring to 1051.12(a) where a certificate holder is required to ''report'' an interruption of service? PPA needs to clarify how the term ''report'' is applied in these two sections, and include a cross-reference to Subsection 1051.12(a).
89. Section 1051.18. Method of operation.—Consistency with the statute.
This section defines the method of operation for limousine service within PPA's jurisdiction. The PUC comments that this section is inconsistent with Sections 5701(1)(ii) and 5741 (a.2) of the Act because it does not discuss the various types of service contained in these sections. We agree and recommend that the final-form regulation be revised to include all statutory methods of operation for limousine service.
CHAPTER 1053. STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS OF LIMOUSINE SERVICE.
SUBCHAPTER A. CLASSIFICATIONS 90. Section 1053.1. Standard classifications of limousine service.—Consistency with the statute; Statutory authority; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
This section defines the different classifications of limousine service, including luxury limousine service, airport transfer service, and remote carriers. We raise five issues.
First, Subsection (b) states:
The following standard classification of types of limousine service is adopted, and the following is hereby recognized as a standard class of limousine service. A certificated service which does not completely correspond to a standard class may be governed, where practicable, by the regulations for the standard class to which it most nearly corresponds. (Emphasis added.)The second sentence implies that there are services that do not comport with the definitions contained in the regulation, but PPA may unilaterally decide, at its discretion, that these services must comply without including them in the regulation. However, Section 5741(a) of the statute states that ''the authority may by regulation define categories of limousine service.'' (Emphasis added.) The final-form regulation should explain how PPA will determine that these types of services should be classified.
Second, Paragraph (b)(1) defines ''luxury limousine service'' and references ''luxury-type vehicles,'' but this subsection does not explain what this term means. It appears that Section 1053.23(b) defines this term. We recommend that the provisions contained in Section 1053.23(b) be moved, consistent with our comment on Section 1001.10.
Third, Paragraph (b)(2) defines airport transfer service. While this subsection refers to service which originates or terminates at an ''airport, railroad station or bus station,'' Section 5741 (a.2) of the Act does not include bus stations, and only permits service from any ''airport, railroad station, or hotel.'' (Emphasis added.) Therefore, we agree with the PUC that this definition is inconsistent with the Act and should be modified in the final-form regulation.
Fourth, Paragraph (b)(3) defines remotes carriers as:
A limousine operated by the holder of a certificate of public convenience from the PUC that engages in limousine service from any airport, railroad station and hotel located in whole or in part in Philadelphia to a location outside Philadelphia and which is without rights issued by the Authority as provided in section 5741(a)(3) of the act (relating to certificate of public convenience required). For example, a limousine certified by the PUC to provide limousine service in areas outside of Philadelphia may provide that service from the Philadelphia International Airport without a certificate issued by the Authority, provided the to the requirements of this chapter are followed. (Emphasis added.)However, section 5741 (a.3)(2) of the Act states that these types of carriers can transport: ''from any point in a city of the first class to any point in this Commonwealth beyond the city of the first class upon advance reservation in accordance with the service authorized under its certificate of public convenience, excluding service from any airport, railroad station and hotel located in whole or in part in a city of the first class.'' (Emphasis added.) PPA should explain the difference between the language in the regulation and the Act.
Finally, there are two typographical errors in Paragraph (b)(3). First, the phrase ''section 5741(a)(3) of the act'' should be replaced with ''section 5741(a.3) of the Act.'' Second, the last phrase of Paragraph (b)(3) which states, in part, ''the to the requirements of this chapter are followed.'' The phrase ''to the'' should be removed in the final-form regulation.
SUBCHAPTER B. LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE. 91. Section 1053.22. Method of operation.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Subsection (a) states that a common carrier operating a luxury limousine service shall be subject to certain conditions ''Unless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart or the certificate of public convenience.'' (Emphasis added.) These conditions relate to transporting on an exclusive basis and charging for service. This section does not demonstrate the circumstances under which a certificate of public convenience would deviate from these conditions. The final-form regulation should provide specific examples. In addition, in this subsection, the word ''following'' should be inserted in the final-form regulation before the word ''rights.''
Subsection (a)(2) is unclear. An individual commented that the language seems to suggest that payment for service cannot be made by passengers, but only through a ''single person or organization.'' The final-form regulation should clarify the appropriate means of payment.
SUBCHAPTER C. AIRPORT TRANSFER SERVICE 92. Section 1053.32. Method of operation.—Consistency with the statute; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Opening paragraph
This paragraph states that a common carrier operating a luxury limousine service shall be subject to certain conditions ''Unless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart or the certificate of public convenience.'' (Emphasis added.) These conditions relate to transporting on an exclusive basis and charging for service. This section does not demonstrate the circumstances under which a certificate of public convenience would deviate from these conditions. The final-form regulation should provide specific examples.
Paragraph (2)
This section discusses various types of airport transfer service. While Paragraph (2) permits service to be offered on both a scheduled or requested basis, Section 5741(a.2) of the Act only permits scheduled airport limousine service without advanced reservation. We agree with the comments of the PUC and recommend that the final-form regulation be modified to be consistent with the Act.
SUBCHAPTER D. LARGE VEHICLES AND REMOTE CARRIERS 93. Section 1053.41. Large vehicles.—Statutory authority; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Large vehicles
This section defines large vehicles. PA Bus states that the entire Subchapter D, as it pertains to buses (or luxury motorcoaches), is preempted by federal law. Based on the provisions contained in this section, it is unclear to what types of vehicles this regulation applies. For example, Subsection (a) states that a limousine with a capacity of 16 or more must hold a valid PUC certificate to hold Authority limousine rights. However, Subsection (b) states that limousines with a capacity of 16 or more are exempt from this chapter. The final-form regulation needs to clearly explain what constitutes a large vehicle, what vehicles are exempt, and how the regulation complies with federal law.
Licensure requirements
This section is also unclear regarding licensure requirements. Subsection (a) only states that a large vehicle must ''hold'' PPA limousine rights. Does that mean that these vehicles must obtain a valid PPA certificate or that vehicles licensed by the PUC automatically achieve reciprocity with PPA? Does PPA have the statutory authority to permit these vehicles to conduct business in Philadelphia as large vehicles without a certificate? According to a commentator, a consequence of this provision would also be that buses would now be regulated by the PUC, PPA, and the US Department of Transportation. What is the need for having buses regulated by three different agencies? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues, and specifically explain how these vehicles properly obtain licenses from PPA.
94. Section 1053.42. Remote carriers.—Consistency with the statute; Clarity.
Subsection (a) explains the requirements for remote carriers. A commentator argues that this section is directly in conflict with the federal RIDE ACT which allows companies to pick up and drop off passengers at an airport without additional licensing or fees. See 49 U.S.C. § 14501(d). The Preamble to the final-form regulation should explain how the regulation is consistent with this federal law.
One of the two ''relating to'' phrases should be removed from the parenthesis at the end of Subsection (a) as it is a typographical error.
95. Section 1053.43. Certain limousine requirements.—Statutory authority; Need; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
Subsection (a)
This subsection states that the purpose of this section is to ''address limousine service in Philadelphia that is within the jurisdiction of the Authority as provided by the Act, but is not commonly considered either Philadelphia service or limousine service by the public or other regulating agencies.'' However, this subsection does not identify what types of vehicles would not be commonly considered to conduct limousine service, but would still be permitted to provide such services under the Act. The final-form regulation should identify examples of the vehicles included in this section.
Subsection (b)
With respect to ''certain limousines covered,'' Subsection (b) states that this section applies to remote carriers. However, Subsection 1053.41(b), which does not reference remote carriers, includes a cross-reference to Subsections 1053.43(c)—(f). Therefore, it is unclear whether this section applies to other types of limousines in addition to remote carriers. The final-form regulation should clarify the applicability of this section
Subsection (c)(4)
This subsection requires a registration for a limousine subject to this section to expire on June 30 of each year. However, the regulation states that a certificate holder seeking ''continued registration'' must fill out and file the appropriate forms contained in Paragraph (c)(1). Is ''continued registration'' the same as renewal? The final-form regulation should clarify this issue. Why must the forms be completed in February when registrations expire in June? The final-form regulation should explain how it determined whether these timeframes were appropriate.
Subsection (d)
Paragraph (d)(2) refers to ''Authority staff.'' PA Bus questions who these staff members are. The final-form regulation should define this term.
Paragraph (d)(3) is unclear. It states that:
Except as provided in this chapter, limousines subject to this section must adhere to the regulations and orders of the PUC and are not required to adhere to regulations of the Authority while providing limousine service in Philadelphia. The Authority may pursue enforcement of PUC regulations before the PUC, as appropriate.If these vehicles are required to adhere to the PUC regulations and orders and not those of PPA, how does PPA have jurisdiction over them? Furthermore, why would they be required to fill out registration forms with PPA as contained in Subsection (c), and display a PPA sticker on their vehicle as required by Subsection (f)? Why wouldn't these vehicles simply be required to use the necessary documents and forms from the PUC? The Preamble to the final-form regulation should explain the need for and the implementation of this subsection.
CHAPTER 1055. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 96. Section 1055.1 Purpose.—Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (b) includes definitions, which normally are not included in the ''Purpose'' section of a regulation. To improve clarity, we recommend that Subsection (b) be included in its own separate section titled ''Definitions.''
Antique vehicle
What does the PPA consider to be ''substantially in conformance'' with manufacturer specifications? The final-form regulation should clarify this issue.
Compliance inspection
Based on the provisions contained in this definition, the final-form regulation should explain why emissions testing will not occur for limousines.
97. Section 1055.3. Limousine age and mileage parameters.—Statutory authority; Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Subsection (b) Age
This subsection prohibits a vehicle from providing limousine service if it is more than eight years old. Since the Act only places age limits on taxicabs, what is PPA's statutory authority for this prohibition? In addition, what is the need for removing them from service within this timeframe?
Subsection (c) Mileage
This subsection establishes mileage requirements for vehicles first introduced for service and for vehicles removed from service. Since the Act does not include such provisions, what is PPA's statutory authority for mileage requirements on limousines?
Subsection (d) Imputed mileage
According to this subsection, when the odometer reading differs from the amount of miles actually traveled, PPA will impute mileage equal to ''3,333 miles per month from the last reliable odometer recording through the date of inspection.'' How did PPA determine this was an appropriate calculation?
Fiscal impact
It is clear that the need for new vehicles after a certain time period and imposing mileage requirements will impose added costs on limousine owners. However, PPA has not included an analysis of these costs in the regulatory package. In the final-form regulation, PPA should provide a complete fiscal analysis of these costs and explain how the new vehicles and mileage requirements are in the public interest.
98. Section 1055.4. Basic vehicle standards.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section establishes the basic vehicle standards which limousines must comply with. We raise six issues.
First, Subsection (a) requires vehicles to comply with state standards imposed by the Department of Transportation, ''except where those standards are exceeded or otherwise altered by this subpart.'' However, it is unclear when such circumstances would occur. The final-form regulation needs to explain these exceptions and how they will be implemented.
Second, in the first phrase in Paragraph (b)(15), the word ''posting'' should be replaced with ''postings.''
Third, in Paragraph (b)(16), a commentator questions whether it would be reasonable to expect companies to install a separate heating and air system if they cannot meet the temperature requirements included in Subsection (b)(12). What will be the fiscal impact of this requirement for limousine owners?
Fourth, Subsection (c) refers to a federal requirement for interstate drivers that ''No requirement of this subpart'' . . . may be interpreted to disrupt or interfere with. . . . (Emphasis added.) We have three concerns. First, Section 1055.4 is a section not a subpart. Second, since this subsection relates to vehicle standards not drivers, we question the need for its inclusion in this section. Finally, the same language is contained in Section 1057.13, which pertains not to vehicles, but actually to limousine drivers. We recommend that this language be deleted from Section 1055.4 and remain in Section 1057.12.
Fifth, PPA needs to explain why Subsection (e) prohibits advertising on vehicles.
Finally, in Subsection (f), considering our comments relating to taxicabs in Section 1017.5, is it practical to expect limousine certificate holders to inspect limousines on a daily basis?
SUBCHAPTER B. LIMOUSINE INSPECTIONS 99. Sections 1055.11. Scheduled compliance inspections and 1055.12. Offsite inspections.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
These two sections require 25% of a limousine certificate holder's fleet to be presented for inspection by PPA. First, how did PPA determine 25% was an appropriate amount?
Second, PRLA indicates that it is unclear whether these sections apply to remote carriers. If remote carriers are included, PRLA contends that this would require these types of vehicles to submit to inspections from two different agencies, PPA and the PUC, which is not only unnecessary, but costly. PRLA also states that Section 1055.12 would cause further hardship on certain remote carriers because onsite inspections can only occur for fleets in excess of 50 vehicles, located within 30 miles of PPA headquarters. The final-form regulation should specifically state whether these sections apply to remote carriers.
100. Section 1055.13. Failure to appear for scheduled inspection.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need.
This section states that if a limousine driver fails to appear for a scheduled inspection, the driver will not only be charged a rescheduling fee, but will also be subject to penalties. Does this fee apply to all cancelled inspections due to any circumstance? What if it was the first time the driver failed to appear or it was an emergency? In those circumstances would a rescheduling fee be required and penalties entered? PPA should explain the need for these fees in the Preamble to the final-form regulation. Additionally, the final-form regulation should set forth under what circumstances penalties would be imposed.
101. Section 1055.18. Attendance at scheduled inspection.—Reasonableness; Need; Economic impact.
This section of the regulation requires a certificate holder or attorney-in-fact to attend the inspection. While there is clear authority for the inspection of the vehicle, PPA should either delete this entire section or explain its authority to require attendance of the certificate holder or an attorney-in-fact at a vehicle inspection.
If PPA can establish authority, we further question what need obviates attendance by a certificate holder or a hired attorney that justifies the cost to the certificate holder. Typically, a car owner can drop off a car for a state inspection at a garage and pick it up after the work is done. Why must a person attend a limousine inspection? What service or expertise can the person provide while the limousine is inspected by PPA personnel? PPA should delete this entire section or explain how the costs imposed on the regulated community are justifiable.
102. Section 1055.20. Approved models and conditions.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This provision states ''The authority will publish a list of approved makes and models of vehicles by classification permitted for use as limousines....'' Based on discussion with PPA, it is clear this list is not intended to be exclusive but rather is intended to give guidance to a person purchasing a vehicle on what vehicles have been approved in the past. We recommend that this provision be rewritten so that it is clear how other vehicles can be approved and added to this list and that the list is not exclusive.
SUBCHAPTER C. IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT 103. Section 1055.31. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment.—Consistency with the statute; Legislative intent.
This section states that the sections of the regulation relating to impoundment of taxicabs are the appropriate sections for impoundment of limousines. According to Section 1017.52, impoundment of taxicabs is included in Section 5714(g) of the Act. However, impoundment of limousines is contained in its own separate section of the Act. See § 5741(f). Therefore, it appears that the legislature did not intend for impoundment requirements for taxicabs to apply to limousines. In order to be consistent with the statute, in the final-form regulation this section should be revised to reflect the process for impoundment of limousines only.
CHAPTER 1057. LIMOUSINE DRIVERS 104. Section 1057.5. Standards for obtaining a limousine driver's certificate.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Criminal history report and record
Paragraph (b)(6) references both a criminal history report and a criminal history record. ''Criminal history report'' is defined in Section 1001.10, whereas a ''criminal history record'' is defined in the Criminal History Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S.A §§ 9101, et seq. Did PPA intend for there to be a distinction between the two phrases? If not, then only one should be used in the final-form regulation.
Reports from each jurisdiction
Paragraphs (b)(6) and (8) require criminal history and driver history reports from each jurisdiction, other than Pennsylvania, in which the applicant resided in the five preceding years. We recognize the safety aspect for the riding public of the criminal history and driver histories of applicants. Nonetheless, if a person immigrated legally into the United States, would a sufficient criminal history check have already occurred by the United States government? We request an explanation of what specific documentation PPA will accept from foreign governments, how this documentation can be obtained, and possible costs imposed on the applicant requesting this information. We also request an explanation of the need for criminal checks for persons who have immigrated legally.
Other rights in which the applicant has a controlling interest
Subsection (b) provides a list of all the information that must be included with an application for a limousine driver's certificate. Subsection (b)(10) requires a list of all PPA or PUC certificates or ''other rights in which the applicant has a controlling interest.'' Subsection (b) does not explain whether this includes rights pertaining to interests unrelated to limousines. This provision is vague and the final-form regulation needs to define what comprises ''other rights.''
Current on all reports
Paragraph (b)(11) requires the applicant to include a written statement verifying certain things. Subparagraph (b)(11)(iii) requires verification that the applicant is current on all ''reports'' due to PPA. It is unclear what ''reports'' PPA is referring to. To improve clarity, we recommend that the final-form regulation include cross-references to the appropriate sections of the regulation relating to reports.
105. Section 1057.9. Limousine driver test.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section explains the development by PPA of a test for limousine drivers. However, it is unclear in Paragraph (c)(5) how it would be determined that a person has appropriately ''demonstrated'' that they can read and write English. The final-form regulation should clarify this issue.
106. Section 1057.10. Expiration and renewal of certificate.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section discusses the process for expiration and renewal of a driver's certificate. Subsection (a) establishes that certificates expire one year from the date of issuance and are annually renewed, all of which is already contained in Section 1051.3. Therefore, Subsection (a) is redundant and should be removed from the final-form regulation. We also recommend that to improve clarity, Subsections (b)—(d) be moved to Section 1051.3.
In Subsection (b), who determines and how is it established that a limousine driver is ''in good standing''? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
107. Section 1057.16. Limousine driver reports after accident.—Reasonableness; Need; Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section describes the necessary steps taken by a limousine driver after an accident. Paragraph (2) requires a driver to take ''necessary precautions to prevent further accidents'' and Paragraph (3) requires a driver to ''render reasonable assistance to injured persons.'' Because the terms in these two paragraphs are vague, implementation may result in drivers acting outside the scope of their licensed duties. For example, a driver should not be expected to stop a fire or render assistance to injured persons without a medical license or proper training. Therefore, the final-form regulation should specifically explain the types of ''precautions'' and ''assistance'' a driver is expected to administer.
CHAPTER 1059. APPLICATION AND SALE OF RIGHTS 108. Section 1059.2. Definitions.—Need; Clarity.
Limousine certificate
Chapter 1059 is not the first time this term is used in the regulation. Therefore, to improve clarity, we recommend that this term be moved, consistent with our comment on Section 1001.10.
Sale
What does PPA consider ''securities'' and ''other ownership interests''? Do these include securities and interests unrelated to limousines? The final-form regulation should clarify these issues.
Transfer fee
This section defines this term as: ''The nonrefundable fee charged by the Authority to review an application to sell transferable rights.'' A different definition for this term is included in Section 1051.2, which states that it is a ''fee paid to the Authority for its review of a sale application as provided in Chapter 1059. . . .'' Why is the fee non-refundable in Section 1059.2 but not in Section 1051.2? PPA needs to clarify whether the fee is ''non-refundable.'' Additionally, we recommend that the definition be moved, consistent with our comment on Section 1001.10.
109. Section 1059.4. Authority approval of sale of rights.—Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
This section defines the sale of transferable rights. Subsection (b) states: ''The sale of any number of securities or other ownership interest . . . will be considered a sale. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) According to subsequent sections, like Sections 1059.6 and 1059.7, a ''sale'' requires PPA approval of an application and various documents. PRLA contends that by requiring an application for ''any'' number of securities, this could result in an unreasonable burden on the ability of a corporate entity to freely transfer stock. We recommend that the final-form regulation specify the number of securities that would constitute a sale. In addition, the final-form regulation should explain what ''ownership interests'' are subject to a sale.
110. Section 1059.5. Agreement of sale.—Statutory authority; Reasonableness; Need.
Subsection (b) states that an agreement of sale is void ''if not executed by all parties in the presence of the Director or a designee.'' PRLA states that even if an owner wishes to transfer shares to a family member, according to this subsection, the requirements for ''the filing of a transfer application, a review of the application by PPA, a determination of whether that individual met unspecified PPA criteria as to their suitability to be a stockholder in the company, and that all [the owner and the family member] appear at the Director's office'' would still apply. PRLA, therefore, contends that these requirements are ''simply unworkable and unreasonable.'' PPA should explain the need for requiring execution of an agreement of sale to occur in this manner. Similar concerns apply to Sections 1059.6 (a)(2), 1059.6(b)(1), and 1059.8 (b)(1).
111. Section 1059.6. Application for sale of transferable rights.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedures.
Subsection (d) pertains to the sale of multiple rights. It states that the amount of transfer fee imposed will be determined ''based on the higher of the aggregate value of the sale or the transfer fee per right. . . .'' PPA should explain how it determined this was a reasonable method of calculation.
112. Section 1059.9. Financial fitness generally.—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
This section explains what documents PPA will review to determine the financial fitness of a proposed buyer for a sale. We have three concerns.
First, Paragraph (1) states that PPA will review bank statements of accounts holding ''not less than the greater of $25,000 or 2% of the medallion sale price. . . .'' (Emphasis added.) Since limousines don't operate under medallions, we recommend that the word ''medallion'' be removed. PPA also should explain how it determined these were appropriate account holdings for consideration, and why the funds must have been in the account for three months.
Second, in Paragraph (4), why should a buyer demonstrate the absence of any civil judgments against the parties required to submit a criminal history report? (Emphasis added.)
Finally, the numbering in this section is incorrect and should be revised in the final-form regulation.
113. Section 1059.10. Regulatory compliance review.—Clarity.
In Subsection (a), what is a ''regulatory compliance record''? The final-form regulation should define this term.
114. Section 1059.12. Approval process and closing on sale.—Statutory authority; Reasonableness; Need.
Subsections (b) and (c) relate to the process for a closing on a sale. Subsection (b) states that the Director will determine the time and location of the closing. Subsection (c) states that execution of the sale must be witnessed by a PPA staff member. PRLA states that while the sale of a taxicab medallion must occur at PPA offices, the Act only requires approval by PPA for the transfer of a limousine certificate. See § 5718 and 5741.1. Therefore, what is PPA's statutory authority for not only requiring the Director to determine the closing location, but also that it be witnessed by PPA staff? In addition, PRLA suggests that these requirements impose an undue hardship on buyers and sellers who must travel to Philadelphia in order to effectuate a transfer. The Preamble to the final-form regulation should also explain the need for these closing requirements.
Subsection (c) also cites to Sections 5711(c)(5) and 5718 of the Act. Since these sections pertain solely to the regulation of taxicabs, they are inapplicable to this section and, unless PPA can demonstrate otherwise, should be removed.
CHAPTER 1061. BROKERS 115. Section 1061.1. Broker registration.—Statutory authority; Implementation procedures.
This section explains that to register as a limousine broker, an individual must apply to the Director of PPA, in the same manner as provided for taxicabs. Similar to our comments in Sections 1029.4 and 1029.6, we question under what authority can PPA classify a person as ineligible to register as a limousine broker who has been arrested and is awaiting trial. PPA should also explain how the requirements for broker training for limousines are consistent with the statute and how they are adequate.
CHAPTER 1065. INSURANCE REQUIRED. 116. Section 1065.1. Limousine insurance.—Economic impact; Feasibility; Implementation procedures; Reasonableness.
Paragraph (b)(2) sets forth the insurance requirements for limousines:
The liability insurance maintained by a limousine certificate holder shall be in an amount at least $1,500,000 to cover liability for bodily injury, death or property damage incurred in an accident arising from authorized service. The $1,500,000 minimum coverage is split coverage in the amounts of $500,000 bodily injury per person, $900,000 bodily injury per accident and $100,000 property damage per accident. This coverage must include first party medical benefits in the amount of $100,000 and first party wage loss benefits in the amount of $100,000 for passengers and pedestrians. Except as to the required amount of coverage, these benefits must conform to 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701—1799.7 (relating to Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). First party coverage of the limousine driver of limousines must meet the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1711 (relating to required benefits).Similar to our comments in Section 1025.3, relating to insurance requirements for taxicabs, we recommend that PPA provide an analysis for limousines of the insurance limits in the final-form regulation regarding the feasibility of multiple insurers providing the insurance required by the regulation and the affordability of the insurance for limousine service providers.
SILVAN B. LUTKEWITTE, III,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 11-534. Filed for public inspection March 25, 2011, 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.
