[41 Pa.B. 6499]
[Saturday, December 3, 2011]
[Continued from previous Web Page] § 1011.5. Ineligibility due to conviction or arrest.
Section 1011.5 addresses the eligibility of a regulated party or applicant to hold rights issued by the Authority when that person has been convicted or is being prosecuted for committing certain crimes. Persons engaged in providing the services subject to the act will have very close contact and have access to private information about members of the public. Drivers will transport tourists, students and business people at all hours of the day and night. Dispatchers and certificate holders will be handling the personal information of people who use their services, such as name, address, travel habits and credit card or other financial information (as will drivers). Brokers will occupy a position of trust and will often be called upon to safe guard large amounts of money; they must also maintain a fiduciary relationship with clients. Therefore, qualifications of the nature provided in this section are essential to assuring public safety and confidence in the taxicab and limousine industries in Philadelphia.
Several commentators suggested that the limitations of this section are too harsh in general and questioned the availability of due process. Regulated parties and applicants will be afforded due process in terms of the application of this section by TLD staff (§ 1005.24) or a presiding officer after a hearing. See § 1005.211.
(c). Subsection (c) requires a regulated person to notify the Director of an arrest or conviction, as defined in § 1001.10, within 72 hours of its occurrence. This subsection has been amended to impose this obligation upon applicants for rights as well.
(d). Subsection (d) provides that in the event a regulated person becomes the subject of a criminal prosecution for a crime that would render the person ineligible to be a regulated party, pursuant to this section, the Authority may initiate an enforcement action and seek an immediate suspension of rights. IRRC and other commentators questioned the implication of subsection (d), which permits the Authority to seek a suspension of the regulated party's rights based upon an alleged criminal violation.
We agree with IRRC's concern and have amended this section in the final-form regulations to grant discretion to the Enforcement Department or Trial Counsel to initiate an investigation of the circumstances related to the criminal prosecution to identify potential violations of the act, this part or an order of the Authority and place the applicable rights out of service pursuant to § 1003.32 (relating to out of service designation), if appropriate. The out of service process requires a determination that the public safety is at issue before that emergency process may be implemented. That process also requires the Enforcement Department to issue a formal complaint rapidly and the requires prompt access to a formal hearing on the record at which the Authority will bear the burden of proof that a violation of the act, this part or an order of the Authority has occurred. This process will dispense with any criminal law analysis during the period of prosecution. We believe this process addresses comments of IRRC and other commentators about enforcement actions based on the mere prosecution of a regulated party, while also permitting the Authority to protect the public interest. A commentator suggested that this provision was unclear as to the status of the rights of a party associated with the person subject to conviction who is not subject to conviction, such as a limousine certificate owner who employs a driver subject to this section. We do not believe that this section can reasonably be interpreted to focus on regulated parties who are not subject to prosecution as referenced in this subsection.
(f). While any party may request a waiver from this section as provided for in § 1005.23, the final form regulation contains specific criteria to be considered while reviewing the waiver petition in the new subsection (f). We believe the addition of this language will give the Authority the ability to continue to provide a level of certainty to the public that the backgrounds of regulated parties have been adequately reviewed, while also creating flexibility to deviate from the specific prohibitions of this section if public safety can maintained.
We decline to specify chapters or sections of the crimes code, beyond that provided in the definition of ''conviction'' in section § 1001.10, which will make an individual ineligible to be a regulated party as provided in this section. A commentator made comparisons to similar provisions of the PUC's regulations. While it is true that this final-form regulation deviates from the provisions of the PUC, it is also true that the PUC's regulations are not necessarily consistent. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.505(c) (providing no limitation on the prohibition from service for criminal convictions based on the passage of time); and 52 Pa. Code § 30.72(c) and (d) (including misdemeanor violations for crimes of moral turpitude, but limiting the prohibition from service to periods while a ''court or correctional institution maintains some form of supervision [over the regulated party].'' The act specifically prohibits persons from holding medallions or certificate of public convenience if they have been convicted of a felony within the past five years, regardless of the crime's association with taxicab or limousine service.
We believe the inclusion of the new subsection (f) will permit the Authority to more narrowly tailor the application of this section on a case-by-case basis through the waiver process. Of course, waiver determinations are also subject to review pursuant to §§ 1005.24 and 1005.211.
Several commentators also suggested that it was inappropriate for the Authority to consider the period that an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (''ARD'') order is in effect as a criminal conviction. While this language is not specifically contained within this section, it is incorporated here through the definition of the term ''conviction'' in § 1001.10. Preliminarily, we note that the final-form regulations do not require any period of time to elapse after the terms of an ARD order have been served, unlike criminal convictions. However, the re-initiation of criminal prosecution remains a possibility until a person successfully completes the terms of an ARD order; therefore, the Authority will not treat the matter as resolved until that time. See 234 Pa. Code § 318(c). We believe the amendments we have made to subsection (d) and the addition of subsection (f) will ensure the fair application of this section to ARD cases.
A commentator suggested that this section is illegal as provided in 18 Pa.C.S. § 9124; however, subsection (c) of that statute creates a clear authorization for the Authority to use information related to criminal convictions to determine eligibility as provided for in this section, particularly as amended in its final form as provided above.
§ 1011.6. Fleet program.
Section 1011.6 requires taxicab certificate holders to participate in the City of Philadelphia's fleet program. That program relates to the management of parking violations, particularly when issued to a vehicle while the vehicle was being operated by a lessee. The program is used by many commercial entities to direct the enforcement of parking violations toward the person who committed the violation as opposed to the vehicle's lessor. In 2005 taxicab certificate owners owed tens of thousands of dollars' worth of parking violation fines to the City of Philadelphia and were under continual threat of impoundment or other on-street parking enforcement actions. Since 2005 taxicab certificate owners have enrolled in the fleet program and the threat to the service availability of those taxicabs has been abated by the resolution of that once nearly unmanageable problem.
A commentator suggested that once taxicab drivers are identified by the certificate holders as the driver of the vehicle on the date and time a parking violation was issued, the driver should have the ability to rebut that allegation. We agree with the commentator; however, the adjudication of parking violations is not within the Authority's jurisdiction. That function is completed by the City of Philadelphia through its Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, which does provide for standard administrative hearings. See 12 Phila. Code 2807.
A commentator suggested that this section may not be applied to partial-rights taxicabs certificate owners because those drivers are not subject to section 5706 of the act. This comment misconstrues the act and is a continuation of an argument addressed in our response to §§ 1011.2 and 1011.3, which we incorporate here. The act defines the term ''taxicab'' in section 5701 in a manner which clearly includes partial-rights taxicabs. Section 5706(a) of the act applies to ''drivers of taxicabs and limousines within cities of the first class.'' While it is certainly true that partial-rights taxicabs have the benefit of providing service both within Philadelphia and outside the city pursuant to a single certificate, it is also true that when those vehicles provide taxicab service within Philadelphia, the drivers must be certified by the Authority pursuant to section 5706 of the act. As provided in section 5714(d)(2), partial-rights certificate holders may only provide service through authorization issued by the Authority. Both partial-rights taxicab certificate holders and drivers must comply with the act, this part and orders of the Authority, including the obligation to use drivers certificated by the Authority as provided in section 5706 of the act and Chapter 1021 of these regulations.
However, we have amended section (a) to remove reference to a taxicab driver only because it is possible that a parking violation could be issued to a taxicab although it is not in taxicab service. The purpose of eliminating situations in which taxicabs will be removed from service as a result of an impoundment or registration suspension associated with outstanding parking violations is not limited to the issuance of those violations while the vehicle is in active taxicab service.
§ 1011.7. Payment of outstanding fines, fees and [,] penalties [and taxes].
Section 1011.7 requires regulated parties and applicants for rights issued by the Authority to remain current on the payment of fines, fees and taxes payable to the Authority, the City of Philadelphia or the Commonwealth. IRRC and other commentators questioned the power of the Authority to require regulated persons to evidence that they are current on parking violations, moving violations, and state and local taxes. IRRC also questioned the reason for these requirements and the costs to the Authority and the regulated industries to comply with them.
(b). Subsection (b) requires confirmation that those subject to the act are current on the payment of all outstanding and unappealed moving and parking violations. The presence of outstanding or unpaid parking or moving violation balances undermines the stability of the supply of taxicabs and limousines in Philadelphia, as well as the individuals who drive them. We believe the presence of a predictable supply of service providers is crucial to our mandate to develop and maintain ''a clean, safe, reliable, and well regulated taxicab and limousine industry.'' See 53 Pa.C.S. 5701.1(2).
The presence of outstanding moving violations evidences both a negative driving history and a likelihood of a suspension of the regulated person's driver's license. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1533. Outstanding moving violations may result in the impoundment of the regulated person's motor vehicle, which may be a taxicab or limousine. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6309.1. Regulated persons may also be subject to arrest as a result of outstanding moving violations. See, e.g., 234 Pa. Code Rule 430. An arrest of this nature may render a regulated person ineligible to provide taxicab or limousine service as provided in § 1011.5, and would certainly remove that person from the field of individuals capable of providing common carrier service in Philadelphia.
The presence of outstanding parking violations may result in the suspension of the state issued registration of a regulated person's vehicle, potentially a taxicab or limousine. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1379. The suspension of the state issued registration for a regulated person's vehicle will subject that vehicle to impoundment if operated on a highway in the Commonwealth. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 6309.2. Outstanding parking violations may also subject the regulated person's vehicle to impoundment, even if not operated on a highway in the Commonwealth. See 12 Phila. Code § 12-2405.
The presence of outstanding moving or parking violations, or both, directly threaten the legitimate operation and availability of clean, safe and reliable taxicabs and limousines in Philadelphia. We believe it is crucial that we continue to seek assurance that regulated parties, and their vehicles, are not subject to these penalties.
Because every regulated party in Philadelphia has complied with this requirement since 2005, the status quo in Philadelphia will be maintained through the continuation of this requirement. This requirement will result in no increased costs in terms of compliance. Because the Authority's standard operating procedures have incorporated the review of the information required by this section for the past 8 fiscal years, this section is revenue neutral and will have no fiscal impact upon the Authority.
(c). Subsection (c) requires confirmation that those subject to the act are current on all taxes owed to the Commonwealth. We believe that persons seeking Commonwealth authorization to provide taxicab or limousine service should be able to evidence that they are current on taxes owed to the Commonwealth, as well as the Commonwealth's political subdivision within which they seek to operate. We believe this a reasonable exercise of our discretion. We further believe that delinquencies in terms of those taxes may reflect upon the likelihood of a regulated party to remain current on other penalties or fees owed and debts generally incurred in the course of providing taxicab or limousine service. The financial ability of regulated parties to properly fund their operations is an important component of the quality of service they will provide. However, in response to IRRC's comment we will delete this subsection from this final form regulation and consider promulgating a similar regulation through a future rulemaking.
(d). Subsection (d) required regulated parties to confirm that they have obtained a Philadelphia Business Privilege License, which is necessary to comply with Philadelphia's tax ordinances. The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee objected to the inclusion of this provision for taxicab drivers and IRRC expressed similar concerns. We will delete this section; however, we incorporate here our response to subsection (c) above.
(e). Subsection (e) provides guidance as to the persons subject to this section. This subsection has been re-identified as subsection (c) in order to accommodate the deletions of subsections (c) and (d). A commentator questioned the manner in which the provisions related to tax payments would be applied to key employees. We believe the deletion of those provisions and the deletion of ''key employee'' from this subsection in the final form regulation addresses that comment.
As a result of the above referenced changes, we have also amended the title of this section to remove the reference to ''taxes.''
§ 1011.8. Facility inspections.
Section 1011.8 provides that the Authority may inspect the facilities of certificate holders and brokers used to provide service pursuant to the act. IRRC commented that the terms ''operating locations'' and ''facility inspections'' were vague and required differentiation. We agree with IRRC's comment and have revised this section by deleting the general language used in the proposed form regulation and replacing it with language specific to each regulated service provider to which it is to apply. A commentator suggested that some limitation as to when these facility inspections may occur should be made a part of the final form regulation; we agree and have added such language.
(a). This new subsection (a) provides that Authority Inspectors may enter upon the premises of taxicab certificate holders to inspect vehicles and records related to service provided under the act during regular business hours.
(b). This new subsection (b) provides that Authority Inspectors may enter upon the premises of certificate holders used to provide dispatching services to inspect dispatching equipment and assure general compliance with Chapter 1019 of these regulations.
(c). This new subsection (c) provides that Authority Inspectors may enter upon the premises of brokers to review records related to either completed or pending transfers filed with the Authority as provided in § 1027 to assure compliance with the act and Chapter 1029 of this part.
This type of on the spot investigation is often critical to assuring general continued compliance with the act and to further investigations authorized by 53 Pa.C.S. § 5505(d)(24).
A commentator suggested that a penalty schedule be placed in this section to identify potential penalties for violations. We decline to do so for the reasons provided in response to comments to § 1001.61, which we incorporate here.
§ 1011.9. Taxicab service limitations.
Section 1011.9 establishes certain limitations on who may provide taxicab services and requires certificate holders to supervise their taxicabs to make certain that only authorized individuals provide taxicab service.
A commentator suggested that this provision eliminates a type of taxicab often referred to as a driver owned vehicle or ''DOV.'' In its Comment No. 6, IRRC commented that these issues required clarification. Representative Mark D. Cohen also suggested that this regulation will prohibit taxicab drivers from owning their own taxicabs.
The Authority has not permitted the use of DOV's in Philadelphia since 2005; therefore, this section does not represent a change from the current practice in Philadelphia. There is no cost associated with this regulation, nor is there a need to change any practice currently adhered to by the regulated community.
The DOV concept relates to the theoretical use of a medallion on a vehicle owned by a person other than the medallion owner. In that scenario the medallion owner leases the medallion to a taxicab driver who owns a vehicle. The vehicle only becomes a taxicab by virtue of the attachment of the medallion, which the driver does not own. The vehicle, with the medallion owner's medallion attached, then proceeds to provide taxicab service, otherwise pursuant to the act. In the typical DOV scenario, the medallion owner divorces itself from any obligation to maintain the vehicle to which its medallion is attached and can repossess the medallion upon the termination of the lease or for a breach of the lease, such as a late lease payment.
Drivers rarely possess the resources to properly maintain taxicabs and certainly do not have access to the resources available to medallion owners who have assumed a significant duty by choosing to participate in the provision of a public utility service. Between 2005 and 2011 the average price of a taxicab medallion in Philadelphia has increased from $73,762.30 to over $300,000, creating a significant amount of equity in a medallion for most medallion owners.
Medallions were created by the Legislature to give the medallion owners the ability to ''upgrade and improve the operations of taxicabs.'' See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5718. We believe the obligation to supervise and maintain taxicabs are properly placed with the owners of the respective medallions, as opposed to a driver. We further believe that the reintroduction of the DOV relationships in Philadelphia will result in a reduction to the quality of vehicles used to provide taxicab service and reverse many of the gains we have made in that regard since 2005. These regulations will improve the quality of vehicles chosen for entry into taxicab service and we will carefully inspect those vehicles at the time of scheduled inspections and during field inspections. However, we cannot continuously monitor the mechanical or interior condition of every taxicab in Philadelphia. We anticipate that medallion owners, through their own regular inspections and upon notification from drivers, will promptly and properly make needed repairs to vehicles used to provide taxicab service. We believe that most taxicab drivers are not financially capable of making those rapid and thorough repairs.
Again, this regulation will not change the status quo in Philadelphia in place since 2005. We do not disclose the option of promulgating regulations in the future that will address the concerns of the Authority and the regulated industries in relation to the DOV concept, but the creation of such a new program will have to be the product of a more narrowly tailored rulemaking involving significant input from the industry and the general public.
§ 1011.10. Discrimination in service.
Section 1011.10 prohibits drivers from discriminating against members of the public based on race and several other factors. A commentator suggested that this language was not identical to language used by the PUC. However, we believe that this section is sufficiently short, clear and easily understood by drivers providing service in Philadelphia as originally proposed.
§ 1011.11. Record retention.
Section 1011.11 provides guidelines for the manner in which records related to service provided under the act or this part must be stored. The Authority's current local regulations contain numerous record retention requirements with varying durations that were not clearly identified and not located in one section. The final-form regulation contains fewer record retention requirements, standardizes the retention period and makes those requirements much easier to find and understand.
(a). IRRC and other commentators commented that the nature of records to be retained should be specified more precisely, including those related to taxicab leases. We agree with IRRC's comment, but note that the chapters of the final form regulations applicable to particular service providers identifies certain records to be retained, although many other records may be deemed necessary for retention by the regulated persons. This section was not intended to identify records that must be retained, but simply to identify the manner in which they must be kept so that they may be easily retrieved and examined when necessary. In order to prevent confusion and to eliminate the retention of unnecessary records, specific records are now identified for retention based on the type of right at issue. The review of the records identified in this subsection has proven necessary to important Authority investigations since 2005. We will consider making additions to this list through a subsequent rulemaking. We believe this change will address IRRC's concern about the specificity of guidance provided to the regulated industries.
The record retention period in the proposed form regulations was 5 years. Some commentators questioned the need for maintaining these records for that period of time and questioned the associated cost. From the Authority's experience complaints that lead to investigations are often not registered until sometime after the matter complained of occurred or after the series of events complained of began. The records identified in this subsection will contain information necessary for the Authority to adequately investigate the most common complaints and the most potentially harmful behavior with the regulated industries. Therefore, records must be maintained for a period of time sufficient to conduct such investigations.
A commentator suggested that the period remain at five years for the reasons identified by the Authority and even requested that the list of records to be maintained be expanded. However, we will compromise in order to address any issue related to costs of storing records we have reduced the record retention period in the final form regulations to 2 years, which is consistent with established retention periods currently in place in Philadelphia. Based on this reduction of the retention period and the elimination of other record retention requirements as provided below, we believe this section will not increase operating costs of regulated parties, but will actually make it much simpler to accurately maintain these common industry related documents.
(b). Subsection (b) requires that records be maintained pursuant to this section in chronological order by date and time of day. The requirement to maintain records in a logical order should not be necessary, but prior investigations have been delayed or even rendered impossible due to a refusal of regulated parties to maintain records in a manner capable of being logically reviewed. We have received reports of regulated parties who maintain records in trash bags so that they cannot be accused of failing to maintain records, but simultaneously make investigations nearly impossible. Regulated parties must maintain business records in an ordinary and prudent manner, just as any other business; we believe we would be remiss not to set this low threshold. The comments also suggested some confusion as to whether regulated parties are required to keep paper and electronic records. There is no requirement to keep both electronic and paper records. This subsection has been amended to clarify that point.
(c). Subsection (c) requires that the locations where records of regulated persons are stored be protected by a fire suppression system. IRRC and other commentators questioned the need and costs associated with this requirement. We agree with IRRC's comment and have deleted this subsection.
(d). Subsection (d) requires that electronic records of regulated persons be routinely backed up and stored off site. IRRC and other commentators questioned the need and costs associated with this requirement. We agree with IRRC's comment and have deleted this subsection.
(e). Subsection (e) requires regulated parties to produce records retained pursuant to this part to the Authority upon request. IRRC questioned whether the request for documents by the Authority would be in writing. We agree with IRRC's comment and have amended this subsection to clarify that the requests for records will be in submitted in writing or upon inspection as provided in § 1011.8.
A specific penalty for a violation of this section is not provided, which is consistent with our response to § 1001.61 above.
§ 1011.12. Aiding or abetting violations.
Section 1011.12 prohibits persons for aiding or abetting regulated persons in the violation of the act, this part or an order of the Authority, and does not deal with other rights of regulated parties, for example the right to engage in collective bargaining as otherwise permitted by law. This section is identical to the PUC's regulations at 52 Pa. Code § 30.76(f) (relating to violations) and is clear, easily understood and was applicable to most regulated parties through PUC regulation. This section does not preclude an undercover officer from soliciting a bribe or other bad behavior from a regulated party, nor an attorney from advising a client about the legality of provisions of the act, this part or an order of the Authority. Commentators suggested potential confusion over competing requirements of the PUC and the Authority; however; the PUC does not have jurisdiction over service provided under the act, so there is no conflict.
A specific penalty for a violation of this section is not provided, which is consistent with our response to § 1001.61 above. Another commentator noted correctly that this section does not prohibit regulated parties from petitioning the government, seeking to collectively bargain or otherwise follow the laws of the United Stated or this Commonwealth.
§ 1011.13. Interruptions of service.
Section 1011.13 requires taxicab certificate holders and dispatchers to report interruptions in service to the Authority within promptly defined periods of time. Taxicab certificate holders are required to report any discontinuance in the provision of taxicab service that lasts 5 or more days and dispatchers must report any discontinuation in service that lasts more than 2 hours. The proposed form regulations contained more restrictive reporting requirements and terms for cancellation of the certificates in violation of this section that we believe are unnecessary and have removed them from the final-form regulation. IRRC and another commentated questioned the need for the narrower reporting timeline in the proposed form regulation, as well as the meaning of the terms ''interruption'' and ''suspension'' as previously used in that section.
The final-form regulation clarifies that any discontinuation in the provision of the identified service lasting beyond the permitted period must be reported to the TLD's Manager of Enforcement within 7 days of the beginning of the period of discontinued service for taxicab certificate holders and within 5 hours of the beginning of the period of discontinuance of service for dispatchers. Dispatchers will have a narrower reporting requirement because their inability to provide or decision to cease dispatching operations will have immediate negative impacts upon both the traveling public and the taxicabs that use the dispatcher's services. The report on the discontinuance by either type of certificate holder may be easily submitted through email and must identify the reason for the discontinuation and its projected duration. We need to maintain information of this nature in order to monitor the current supply of taxicabs as well as dispatcher activity in Philadelphia. Events which lead to the discontinuance of a large number of taxicab certificate holders may be indicative of problems that require regulatory attention by the Authority. Without the simple and easy reporting requirement created by this section, the Authority will be without important information that directly affects the taxicab industry in Philadelphia.
§ 1011.14. Voluntary suspension of certificate.
Section 1011.4 permits certificate holders to voluntarily place their rights in a suspended status to avoid cancellation as provided in § 1011.13. From time-to-time certificate owners, particularly smaller entities that may only own one taxicab will not be able to keep their taxicab(s) in service, most often due to illness or foreign travel. This designation will allow those certificate owners to place their certificate in a voluntarily suspended status until they are able to resume service, or the voluntary suspend status expires as provided in subsections (c) and (d).
IRRC noted that the ''Act grants PPA the power to rescind certificates, revoke certificates and to grant temporary certificates, but not to suspend them[.]'' IRRC asked for the Authority's statutory authority to suspend rights, we assume voluntarily or otherwise.
Preliminarily, section 5711 of the act also grants the Authority the power to issue certificate of public convenience by order and subsection 5711(c)(5) grants the Authority the power to authorize the transfer of certificates. We also note that a suspension is a less severe form of penalty, if imposed as such, than a revocation.
Given the broad statutory purpose for the Authority's regulation of taxicab and limousine service providers in Philadelphia, we believe it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the act to presume that the Authority is unable to adjudicate a temporary suspension of certificates, yet is permitted to issue, cancel, revoke and otherwise penalize certificates, and their holders for violations of the act or the Authority's regulations.
The Authority's decision to suspend a certificate of public convenience would constitute an ''adjudication'' for purposes of the Administrative Agency Law because it would impact the ''privileges'' of the holder of the certificate. See, e.g., 2 Pa.C.S. § 101 (definition of adjudication), 45 P. S. § 1102 (same). See also MEC Pennsylvania Racing v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, 827 A.2d 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (a license is a valuable privilege and may not be suspended or revoked without due process.)
A certificate of public convenience is a licensing right. A certificate gives only entrance to, not success in, a given territory. Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 54 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Super. 1947). A certificate does not guarantee the security of the common carrier's investment, and it does not grant the common carrier a monopoly. Id. Holders of certificates of public convenience accept them subject to the statutory provisions which permit the certificate to be modified or rescinded for legal cause. Western Pennsylvania Water Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 311 A.2d 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973).
The Authority regulates the services of holders of certificates of public convenience. See, e.g., 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5704, 5706, 5711(c)(1), 5711(c)(6), 5741(a).
The suspension of privileges under a certificate of public convenience may be necessary to protect the traveling public, or in the case of this section, the interests of the certificate holder in avoiding a cancellation due to an interruption in service. The position advanced by several commentators would preclude the Authority from taking action to protect the public from operations that are unreasonable or inadequate to protect the travelling public. If that position is sound, it is very obvious that the Authority's power would be limited to an extent never contemplated by the law. See, e.g., 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1 (Chapter 57 is intended to promote the development of a clean, safe, reliable and well-regulated taxicab and limousine industry).
Therefore, the Authority believes that it does have the right to suspend certificates of public convenience as appropriate through its adjudicatory powers. We also incorporate here our response to a question regarding the power of the Authority to revoke or cancel certificates provided in response to comments to § 1011.3 as it relates to the Authority's power to adjust an original adjudication granting a certificate of public convenience.
(a). Subsection (a) generally provides for the availability of a voluntary suspension upon the approval of the Director. IRRC commented that language related to the ''sole and peculiar discretion'' of the Director and the power of the Director to establish such conditions as the Director deems ''necessary and proper'' were vague and in need of clarification. We agree with IRRC and have deleted that language in the final form regulations. This subsection of the final form regulations now references the need to apply to the Director as provided in this section.
(b). Subsection (b) requires the submission of the report required by § 1011.14 related to the reason for the interruption of service and the anticipated duration. IRRC commented on the lack of clarity as to the form and content of the report, presumably in this planned voluntary scenario. We agree with IRRC's comment and have deleted this subsection as superfluous in consideration of the application form that must be completed in order to be granted a voluntary suspension. The deletion of this subsection required a re-identification of the subsequent subsections.
(c). Subsection (c), which is subsection (b) in the final form regulations, provided that a certificate could not be voluntarily suspended for a period beyond one year. A commentator noted a lack of clarity between this subsection and subsection (d) (now subsection (c)) in term of its application to a medallion taxicab certificate. This section has been amended to clarify that it applies to partial-rights taxicab certificates and dispatcher certificates.
(d). Subsection (d), which is subsection (c) in the final form regulations, originally limited the period of voluntary suspension for medallions to 90 days. However, current practice in Philadelphia permits a period of voluntary suspension to extend to 6 months; therefore, this section has been amended to clarify that the voluntary suspension of a medallion may be no longer than 6 months. For the same reasons referenced in response to comments to subsection (c) above we have amended this subsection to clarify that it applies to medallion taxicab certificates and individual medallions.
(e). Subsection (e), which is subsection (d) in the final form regulations, provides that medallion certificates will not be placed in a voluntary suspend status if five percent of the medallion fleet is already in a suspend status. Both IRRC and a commentator questioned the reason for this particular cap level and the means to seek redress for situations in which the cap has already been met.
There are a limited number of medallion taxicabs in Philadelphia. The medallion taxicab industry is nearly unanimous in supporting the issuance of 100 new medallions for service in Philadelphia, in part because the Authority has already removed so many illegal service providers. The result has been that at times the public need for medallion taxicab service is already straining the current ability of the industry to meet demand. Given that level of demand for medallion taxicab service, we believe anything more than a five percent reduction in the available fleet of these vehicles (80 medallion taxicabs) will adversely affect the public good. In terms of comments related to the justification for this cap in the event of a serious problem that affects the entire medallion taxicab industry, a certificate holder may always seek a waiver from this limitation (or a rule change) as provided in § 1005.23, in which the unlikely conditions of the nature referenced may be taken into consideration.
(g). Subsection (g), which is subsection (f) in the final-form regulation, has been amended to note the revised title of § 1011.7.
§ 1011.15. Death or incapacitation of a certificate holder or certain persons with controlling interest.
Section 1011.15 provides for the continued operation of certificates in the event of the death or incapacitation of an individual certificate holder or the death, incapacitation or dissolution of persons that have a five percent or more ownership interest in an entity with ownership interests in a certificate.
IRRC noted the comment of a commentator who sought assurance that a medallion could be transferred through a last will and testament. Section 5713 of the act provides that medallions are property that may not be cancelled or revoked by the Authority. However, § 1011.15 does not deal with medallions, but the underlying certificates, which will include the certificates medallion owners need to operate a medallion taxicab. Because this section does not contradict the act or even deal with medallions at all, we do not believe it is necessary to note the ability of the medallion owners to transfer a medallion through a last will and testament.
The estate transfer process referenced by the commentator goes more toward the price (or lack thereof) of the medallion, not to the issue addressed by this section, being the administrative review of the new proposed owner of a certificate of public convenience. The transfer of a medallion or certificate by any means will be considered a sale as provided for in the final-form regulations and will require the prospective buyer to complete the sale process outlined in Chapter 1027. The fact that the proposed medallion owner inherited, as opposed to purchased, the medallion, is not relevant to the Authority's analysis or this section. For example, if a medallion is left through a last will and testament to a person who was convicted of a felony within the past five years, that person will not be permitted to own or operate the medallion, nor would that person be eligible for a certificate of public convenience. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5718(c) (providing that no person or corporation may purchase a medallion or apply for a certificate if the person or corporation or an officer or director of the corporation has been convicted or found guilty of a felony within the five-year period immediately preceding the transfer). However, the decedent's estate would certainly be permitted to sell the medallion and distribute the proceeds of the sale as approved through standard probate procedures.
(b). Subsection (b) provides for situations involving the death, incapacitation or dissolution of a person having a five percent or more ownership interest in an entity with ownership interests in a certificate. In such cases the five percent interest must be transferred as provided for in Chapter 1027, within a designated period of time. This subsection does not apply to persons with controlling interests unless that person owns at least five percent of the entity that owns the certificate.
A commentator suggested that a certificate (or medallion) would have to be sold if a person with a controlling influence in an entity became subject to this subsection, which is simply not the case. Because most, if not all, certificates are owned by corporations or partnerships or some other form of legal entity other than an individual, provisions must be made for the continuation of certificates when persons with a five percent or higher interest in the certificate holder are no longer present or able to adhere to the requirements of the act or the Authority's regulations. In fact, most certificates are owned by entities with only one or two securities owners, be they shareholders, partners or otherwise. Therefore, the final-form regulation must take those circumstances into consideration.
The requirements of this subsection will permit the continued use of the rights while the new owners are reviewed by the Authority and will assure the public that each of the new owners of the certificate have been properly reviewed for eligibility. The entity itself or other owners of the entity individually, are certainly permitted to acquire those shares. There need be no interruption of service.
§ 1011.16. Power of successors by law.
Section 1011.16 explains how legal successors may utilize certificates including the time limits on filing petitions to extend their use.
§ 1011.17. Limitations.
Section 1011.17 places restrictions on the ability to carry out actions detailed in Sections 1011.15 and 1011.16.
§ 1011.18. Application review generally.
Section 1011.18 cites to the section that describes how applications for rights will be reviewed.
§ 1011.19. Exclusive and nonexclusive service.
Section 1011.19 provides for one of the basic parameters of taxicab service in Philadelphia, which is exclusivity or non-exclusivity of purpose. Through a drafting error this section expanded the right of taxicabs in Philadelphia to provide non-exclusive service, which would be a departure from the current practice in Philadelphia and be inconsistent with the improved level of service intended by both the act and these regulations. The Authority will retain the ability, through the waiver process, to permit non-exclusive service in times of intense stress upon Philadelphia's transportation infrastructure. Examples of when non-exclusive taxicab service may be permitted include public transit work stoppages or special events in Philadelphia that result in unusually high numbers of citizens traveling to a section of the City, such as the Philadelphia Phillies' World Series parade.
Proposed § 1011.20. Noninterference with scheduled service.
Proposed § 1011.20 was intended to provide additional guidance on the manner in which non-exclusive taxicab service could operate. This section is not necessary because Philadelphia taxicabs may not provide non-exclusive taxicab service without special authorization.
Final-form § 1011.20. Service in unauthorized territory.
Final-form § 1011.20 prohibits service within areas otherwise unauthorized by a taxicab's certificate of public convenience and specifically includes reference to attempts to conceal the nature of the unauthorized service by rerouting the service through an authorized area. This section is substantially similar to a PUC regulation found at § 29.312(6). This section has been amended only through a renumbering to § 1011.20 in consideration of the deletion of proposed § 1011.20. A commentator suggested that this section include language related to service provided at Philadelphia International Airport, which is located in both Philadelphia County and Delaware County. Because this section is drafted to address fraudulently provided service, as opposed to legitimate service between counties, we do not believe the suggested reference to the disposition of the airport is necessary.
Chapter 1013. Medallion taxicabs.
Subchapter A. General requirements § 1013.1. Certificate and medallion required.
Section 1013.1 explains what is required in order for a taxicab to provide citywide service.
§ 1013.2. Attachment of a medallion.
Section 1013.2 explains who may attach a medallion and what must take place before a medallion may be attached.
§ 1013.3. Removal of a medallion.
Section 1013.3 provides that a taxicab medallion may only be removed by the owner upon advanced authorization of the Authority and that upon removal the medallion must be held by the Authority until it is reattached to a taxicab as provided in § 1013.2. A commentator questioned why an owner that removes a medallion from a taxicab must deliver it to the Authority within 2 days, but a lender upon execution is provided five days to do so, as provided in § 1013.22. We would prefer to require that medallions be immediately delivered to the Authority upon removal from a taxicab to prevent the potential for fraudulent use, however, these timeframes were established to provide reasonable and articulable periods for compliance. A lienholder in the midst of a seizure is simply involved in a more complex transaction with less familiarity as to the Authority's procedures; therefore, they have been afforded three additional days to report to the Authority. Although § 1013.22 in the proposed form regulations did not specifically provide for a period of time to deliver the medallion to the Authority, only to report the seizure within five days. We have amended § 1013.22 in the final-form regulations to address that deficiency.
§ 1013.4. Medallion renewal.
Section 1013.4 explains how and when medallions are to be renewed.
Subchapter B. Liens on medallions § 1013.21. Notice of medallion lien.
Section 1013.21 provides procedures for properly filing a lien upon a medallion.
§ 1013.22. Execution on and seizure of a medallion.
Section 1013.22 provides for procedures applicable to situations in which a medallion is executed upon and seized pursuant to law. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5713(a).
(a). Subsection (a) requires a party that has executed upon or seized a medallion to report that fact to the Authority and deliver the medallion to the Authority. We have amended subsection (a) to require that a seized medallion be delivered to the Authority within 5 days for reasons noted in our response to comments to § 1013.3 above, which are incorporated here.
A commentator suggested that the driver of a medallion taxicab be provided 30 days' notice of the intent of an execution or seizure. We decline this suggestion as inconsistent with the act, which provides for no such limitation. Additionally, that collateral warning period would make standard execution and seizure practice even more challenging. Placing additional burdens upon lenders will increase costs without justification and may dissuade lenders from participating in the medallion market. We believe the attraction of established, reputable and experienced lenders to the medallion market is a key component of providing stability in the industry and to advancing the statutory goal of increasing medallion values. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5712(a).
(c). Subsection (c) provided that if a medallion, after execution and seizure, is not sold as provided in section 5713 of the act that the medallion would be surrendered to the Authority. A commentator suggested that the requirement to deliver the medallion to the Authority if not sold within one year amounted to a taking. We disagree with the commentator and note that a medallion has no intrinsic value beyond the licensing right it represents. Nevertheless, we note the distinction between the language used in the proposed form regulation as opposed to section 5713(a) of the act and will delete this subsection and rely upon the clear statutory language. We incorporate the responses to similar questions about the value of medallions provided by the PUC at 26 Pa.B. 5816—5817.
§ 1013.23. Invalidation upon execution or seizure.
Section 1013.23 explains the effect of medallion seizures and the procedure parties must use if they wish to try to reclaim their medallions.
Chapter 1015. Partial rights taxicabs § 1015.1. Purpose.
Section 1015.1 provides for the general purpose of Chapter 1015 relating to partial rights taxicabs.
We incorporate our response to questions related to the definition of partial-rights taxicab in § 1011.2. We also note that some commentators suggest that these regulations may create an unfair burden upon partial-rights taxicab owners. We note that at least one other commentator has suggested that partial-rights taxicabs unfairly interfere with medallion taxicab operations. We have attempted to address these issues through various amendments to the proposed regulations and disagree that the final-form regulations create any such imbalance in competition; however, we note that the Legislature has assigned the Authority the obligation to regulate taxicabs in Philadelphia in a manner consistent with the act.
As we have noted, while partial-rights taxicabs are not free to provide service throughout Philadelphia, they are permitted to provide service within sections of Philadelphia and almost everywhere within Philadelphia, provided the taxicab trip in question begins or ends in their designated partial-rights section of the city. For that reason, partial-rights taxicabs may be seen all over Philadelphia and their partial-rights status is invisible to the public. The traveling public within the partial-rights taxicab zones of Philadelphia deserve no less quality of service than citizens in other areas of the city. Some commentators have disputed the similarities between medallion taxicab service and partial-rights taxicab service. We incorporate our comments above regarding the many similarities between those services, particularly as to members of the traveling public. We have deleted subsection (b) because we believe it relates more to policy than substantive regulation and that its deletion has no impact upon the requirements of partial-rights taxicabs under the act or these final-form regulations.
§ 1015.2. Certificate required.
Section 1015.2 provides that a certificate of public convenience must be first issued by the Authority before a partial-rights taxicab may provide service within Philadelphia. A commentator suggested that the use of the term ''person'' in subsection (a) was inconsistent with the definition of the term provided in the proposed form regulations. We agree with the commentator and believe that the wording of this section was confusing. This section has been changed to simply provide: ''A partial-rights taxicab may not provide taxicab service in Philadelphia unless certificated by the Authority.''
§ 1015.3. New or additional rights restricted.
Section 1015.3 provides for limitations upon the expansion of partial rights certificates as provided in section 5714(d)(2) of the act, including specific limitations upon the number of taxicabs each partial-rights taxicab certificate owner may use. The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee, IRRC and other commentators questioned the legislative purposes and means of implementation related to subsections (a), (c) and (d) of this section and we have chosen to delete those sections at this time, despite some support from at least one medallion owner. While we do not necessarily agree that that these requirements are inconsistent with the act or the overall best interests of the public, we recognize that they represent a change from the status quo. We will review this issue at a later date with additional input from the regulated industries. We have also deleted subsection (b), because we believe this prohibition is already clearly provided for in the second sentence of 5714(d)(2) of the act.
§ 1015.4. Partial-rights certificate holders.
Section 1015.4 provides for identification numbers for partial rights taxicab companies, for the territorial limitations of those certificate holders as provided in their certificates as issued by the PUC and continued by the Authority, and requires association with a certified dispatcher.
(a). Subsection (a) lists the partial-rights taxicab companies and their respective identification numbers. A commentator suggested that the listing of the individual partial-rights taxicab certificate holders was inappropriate because those names may change. We believe that the use of this subsection is unnecessary because the numbers assigned to certificates by the Authority is not of a nature necessary for inclusion in our regulations; therefore, we have deleted it from the final form regulation as unnecessary.
(b). Subsection (b) lists the geographical boundaries of each partial-rights taxicab certificate holder in Philadelphia. A commentator objected to this section because it failed to consider areas within the PUC's jurisdiction. We disagree with the commentator position, but will delete this subsection because we agree that it is unnecessary and may create problems related to the sale and transfer of these rights.
(c). Subsection (c) of the final-form regulation provided that each of the taxicabs used by a partial-rights taxicab certificate holder must use the services of the same dispatcher. Because § 1017.5(b)(2) has been amended to only require medallion taxicabs to use certificated dispatchers, this section has been deleted as unnecessary. This deletion will address comments regarding the impact and necessity of this provision.
§ 1015.5. Partial-rights taxicab numbers.
Section 1015.5 requires partial-rights taxicab certificate holders to file a monthly report identifying the vehicles used by the certificate holder to provide taxicab service in Philadelphia and a list of the certified drivers used by the certificate holder. Commentators suggested that information about specific partial-rights taxicabs is better kept by the Authority and disputed the need of partial-rights taxicab certificate holders to report driver information to the Authority based on the argument that the Authority does not have the statutory authority to regulate partial-rights taxicabs.
We believe that the simple transfer of this information to the Authority on a monthly basis is the best way to be certain that the vehicles and taxicab drivers used by partial-rights taxicab certificate holders comply with the act and the Authority's regulations. This issue is of particular importance as to partial-rights taxicabs because they do not require the medallion attachment process provided for in § 1013.3. However, in order to address this potential source of additional costs to the operational requirements of partial-rights taxicab certificate holders; we will delete this section from the final-form regulation and review the need for this provision in a subsequent rulemaking. While we review this matter we believe the continuing need to file vehicle number changes with the Authority and to obtain approval of the Authority to add new vehicles as required through section 5712(b) of the act will address this concern. We incorporate our response provided in response to comments to the definition of ''partial-rights taxicab'' in § 1011.2 regarding the Authority's power to regulated partial-rights taxicabs.
Chapter 1017. Vehicle and equipment requirements
Subchapter A. General provisions § 1017.1. Purpose.
Section 1017.1 provides for the purpose of Chapter 1017.1 and provides definitions of terms not previously used in earlier sections of the regulations.
IRRC suggested that a separate section be developed for definitions so that the purpose and definitions subsections are separate. In response to IRRC's comment we have deleted subsection (a) and re-titled this section ''Definition.'' We believe the reader of these regulations will understand the general purpose of this Chapter from a reading of this Chapter's title. Based on that deletion this section need not contain subsections; therefore, the identification of subsection (b) has been deleted.
(b). Subsection (b) of the proposed form regulation provided certain definitions, this subsection of the final form regulation constitutes the entire section as noted in our response to subsection (a) above.
''Antique vehicle.'' IRRC questioned what the Authority considers ''substantially in conformance'' with manufacture specifications to mean. In adopting this definition the Authority copied the exact definition used by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in its regulations at 67 Pa. Code § 67.2. Our intent was to employ language commonly understood in the Commonwealth. The term noted by IRRC is intended by the Authority to permit minor deviations from the original specifications of the vehicle while also maintaining its original appearance, which is the point of using an antique vehicle. We will not require that every single component of a vehicle offered for ''antique'' status exactly match every specification of the vehicle on the day it was manufactured. While the term is somewhat elastic, this discretion is important because all of the potential deviations from manufacturer specifications cannot be anticipated and a requirement to exactly match all original specifications will place an unreasonably high burden on the certificate holder. Section 5714(a) of the act specifically provides the Authority with the power to permit antique vehicles as taxicabs.
''Hybrid vehicles.'' In the proposed regulations we attempted to create an incentive for taxicab certificate holders to use hybrid vehicles. We adopted the definition ''hybrid vehicle'' used by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in its regulations at 67 Pa. Code § 67.2. One commentator asked:
''How much ethanol must be included in a gasoline mix and how would that be enforced? Does a diesel vehicle qualify? Does a compressed natural vehicle that uses no gasoline qualify? Does an all electric vehicle qualify? How does PPA enforce that the primary source of an electric hybrid vehicle is electricity and not gasoline, which is generally not the case? Why is there not a provision for high mileage gasoline powered vehicles?''IRRC's comments referenced those comments and added a question regarding the failure of this provision to include language related to ''high efficiency vehicles that use gasoline only'' and ethanol only vehicles. Representative Dan Moul correctly noted in his comment that vehicles powered by compressed natural gas should be encouraged for use as taxicabs. A commentator also suggested that the incentive offered by the Authority to use hybrid vehicles is insufficient to encourage their use.
We acknowledge that this is a very complex issue. This Chapter of the proposed form regulations represented the Authority's first attempt to promote the use of alternative energy or high efficiency vehicles as taxicabs and we recognize that a significant amount of research and review will be necessary to arrive at a comprehensive and effective regulation. Therefore, we have withdrawn the use of the term hybrid vehicle from the final-form regulations. After the approval of this final form rulemaking we will initiate a new rulemaking process to address this issue after first engaging in discussions with the regulated industries and other interested parties.
§ 1017.2. Preservice inspection.
Section 1017.2 provides that a TLD inspection sticker is required for a vehicle to perform taxicab service.
§ 1017.3. Taxicab age parameters.
(a). Subsection (a) provides the formula for determining a vehicle's age. We amended this subsection in the final form to simply provide the method to calculate a vehicle's age. We have moved the example of the an age calculation to the new § 1017.4(a), which notes the age limitation. That language has been changed to follow the calendar year, as opposed to an October 1 through September 30 year. This change will clarify that a vehicle will not be ineligible to provide taxicab service until the completion of its eight model year. We believe this will be easier for the industry to follow and that it will be consistent with PUC standards for calculating the age of a vehicle, which also uses the December 31 end date. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.314(d). This change in the method to compute a vehicle's age will constitute a deviation from current practice in Philadelphia, which calculates age using the October 1 date. This change will be effective upon publication of the final form regulations in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
(b). Subsection (b) establishes maximum age requirements for the introduction and continued use of a taxicab. The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee commented that the proposed entry level mileage requirements of the proposed regulation would essentially require taxicab owners to purchase new vehicles and cause a severe economic burden on many taxicab operators. Representative Mark B. Cohen also expressed opposition to the entry level mileage ceiling of the proposed regulations, being 15,000 miles and the mandatory retirement mileage of 200,000 miles. Representative Cohen commented that those limitations would damage the economic situation of drivers and adversely impact taxicab service in more remote areas of Philadelphia. Representative Cohen believed that the statutorily mandated 8 year age limitation was sufficient to protect public safety. Representative Kate M. Harper commented that the entry level requirements provided in the proposed regulations for both age and mileage, created an undue financial burden for owners. IRRC and several commentators raised the same issues in relation to mileage restrictions as were expressed when commenting on the age limitations provided in § 1017.3 of the proposed regulations. Chairperson Thomas, IRRC and other commentators questioned the statutory power of the Authority to set an age cap different from the 8 year ceiling imposed upon the taxicab industry through section 5714(a) of the act, which provides: ''No vehicle which is more than eight years old shall continue in operation as a taxicab.''
We do not believe that a statutorily mandated maximum vehicle age is the equivalent of a limitation upon the Authority's administrative powers to regulate the age (or mileage) of taxicabs. The language of that section of the act cannot reasonably be interpreted to grant a right to use a vehicle up to 8 years of age. Although the Legislature could have worded section 5714(a) of the act to grant taxicab certificate owners the right to use vehicles through the age of eight, it did not.
We believe section 5714(a) was intended to prohibit the Authority from permitting vehicles with a model year age in excess of 8 years from being used as taxicabs, except as an antique. We also note that the statutory ceiling imposed by section 5714(a) is more restrictive than the PUC's regulation, which permits deviation from its 8 year age ceiling upon inspection. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.314(d).
When the PUC promulgated its 8 year ceiling regulation, it responded to comments as follows:
§ 29.314. Vehicle and equipment requirements.* * *Finally, we proposed that no vehicles older than eight years be permitted to be utilized in taxi service. We believed this vehicle age limitation will ensure a current, reliable fleet. This requirement would be phased in over a one year period.* * *Finally, much commentary was provided on the vehicle age requirement. Generally, the commentary suggested that this requirement would unnecessarily increase costs, including insurance costs. Further, commentators suggested that a vehicle's age is not an accurate barometer of the vehicle's condition.While we understand that age is not synonymous with condition, we are also cognizant that age is one of the most important factors to ensure a vehicle is fit for service. We have the difficult task of ensuring a safe and reliable taxi fleet for the public, with only limited tools available to meet this challenge. Age of fleet is a viable, efficient tool for this job.However, we recognize that this requirement may cause undue hardship on select carriers. Therefore, we will allow a compromise. We will continue to impose an 8 year limit, subject to specific exemption. A carrier may request our enforcement personnel to inspect any vehicle more than 8 years old to determine if that vehicle is fit for service. While this necessitates a certain amount of discretion be exercised by our enforcement personnel, this is the necessary result when the clear cut 8 year litmus test is rejected.36 Pa.B. 4181 (August 5, 2006). We believe it is instructive that the Legislature chose not to grant the Authority the ability to exercise discretion to leave vehicles in service after reaching 8 years of age, but for antiques.
Both the PUC and the Legislature have acknowledged that the age of a taxicab impacts upon its reliability and the quality of service it can provide. Why else would this ceiling be imposed by the act? Since the time the PUC established an eight year age limit for taxicabs, it has also done so for limousines. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.333(e), further supporting the precedential nexus between newer vehicles and higher quality service.
Professor Matthew Daus, former Director of New York City's Taxicab and Limousine Commission, commented in support of proposed age and mileage limitations. Professor Daus noted that age and mileage restrictions were the most significant reform ever undertaken in New York's taxicab industry and resulted in a fleet of taxicabs that are safer, cleaner, experience fewer mechanical breakdowns and lower inspection failure rates.
Section 5714(a) requires each taxicab to submit to periodic inspections by the Authority ''to ensure that the vehicle meets the requirements of this subchapter and authority regulations.'' Section 5718(b) also requires the owner of a medallion to comply with the Authority's ''inspection requirements'' when a medallion is sold. The Legislature clearly intended the Authority to establish vehicle standards against which taxicabs would be measured. See 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701.1. The Legislature knew that the Authority's predecessor established age requirements related to vehicles used as taxicabs and the Legislature itself imposed a maximum age requirement for taxicabs. Both age and mileage are clearly ''conditions'' of a vehicle subject to regulatory requirements. We see no distinction between our power to set mileage and age restrictions and our power to require four door vehicles as taxicabs, or to prohibit motorcycles as taxicabs, subjects that are also not covered in the act. These are all ''conditions'' of vehicles used to provide taxicab service.
The Legislature declined to set a vehicle age cap in the act in 2004 of less than 8 years. However, we do not believe that the Legislature intended to prohibit the Authority from establishing vehicle requirements capable of increasing the quality and reliability of vehicles in use as taxicabs, such as age and mileage limitations. Similarly, we believe it is necessary to end the practice of using vehicles with a model age of six or even seven years as ''new'' vehicles in Philadelphia. For all of the reasons related to quality and reliability of service and the role of taxicabs in improving the economic vitality of the Philadelphia region expressed both in this response and the act, it is simply unacceptable that vehicles with such advanced age and mileage can be entered into service as taxicabs in Philadelphia for the first time as ''new'' taxicabs.
The imposition of reasonable age (and mileage) requirements is an accepted method of maintaining or improving taxicab service in the Commonwealth and in other jurisdictions in the United States, and we believe our ability to deliver the results mandated by the Legislature in section 5701.1 of the act will be unnecessarily and unreasonably constrained by an inability to access those standard administrative tools.
However, IRRC and several commentators have questioned the economic impact of the age and mileage restrictions in the proposed regulations. We believe that the requirement in the proposed regulations to use newer vehicles was the primary source of discontent among those members of the regulated community who did comment. We further believe that the continued use of the age and mileage restrictions currently in place in Philadelphia in the final-form regulations will assuage the concerns of the members of the regulated industries as to the alleged negative economic impact of such requirements, particularly when combined with the reductions to the insurance requirements for taxicabs and limousines in the final-form regulation.
It is important to the Authority, the regulated industries and the general public to have a comprehensive set of regulations in place in order to remove the instability in the Philadelphia taxicab and limousine market created by the Germantown Cab decision referenced above. If we can yield on this issue in order to obtain that stability then we must. Therefore, we will continue the age and mileage limitations that are currently in place in Philadelphia, and have been in place since 2005 through amendments to § 1017.4. IRRC requested a cost assessment of the new lower mileage restrictions provided in the proposed regulations. Because the taxicabs and limousines have adhered to the mileage requirements of the final-form regulations for several years, there will be no change or fiscal impact associated with the continued adherence to those established limitations. The status quo as to mileage and age requirements will be maintained in Philadelphia through these final-form regulations.
The changes present in the final-form regulations have resulted in significant alterations to both § 1017.3 and § 1017.4. The new sections will appear as ''§ 1017.3. Age and mileage computation'' and ''§ 1017.4. Age and mileage limitations.'' New § 1017.3 will be comprised of the changes referenced in subsection (a) above, and the new imputed mileage subsection that formerly appeared at subsection (c) of § 1017.4, is amended as referenced in our response to comments to that section. This section also includes a new subsection (c) titled ''Reporting of odometer malfunctions'' taken from § 1017.4(d) of the proposed regulation, although stated penalties applicable to intentional odometer violations have been deleted. We believe the penalty provisions of § 1001.61 will suffice. We believe we have made the language related to age and mile restrictions easier to understand through combining those requirements in one new § 1017.4.
§ 1017.4. Taxicab mileage parameters.
Section 1017.4 of the proposed regulations established mileage restrictions related to the entry and retirement of vehicles to be used as taxicabs. As referenced in our response to comments to § 1017.3, this section has been retitled ''Age and mileage limitations.'' We drafted our responses to comments to § 1017.3 to address the comments to both the age and mileage issues (including cost), we incorporate those responses here.
(a) Retirement age and mileage. Consistent with our responses provided under § 1017.3, the new subsection (a) provides the age and mileage at which a vehicle must be retired from taxicab service, which is identical to the current age ceiling in place in Philadelphia. Subsection (a)(1) relates to the vehicle's age and provides an example of when a vehicle must be retired in a manner consistent with that used by the PUC in 52 Pa. Code § 29.314(d). A vehicle may not be in service on the day it is scheduled for a biannual inspection by the Authority after the vehicle reaches 8 years old. This staggered form of vehicle retirement has been in place in Philadelphia since 2005 and permits the Authority to efficiently supervise the replacement of vehicles while giving certificate holders with some flexibility in terms of when to replace the vehicle.
Therefore, a 2006 vehicle will be 8 years old on December 31, 2014. If that vehicle is scheduled for a biannual inspection on February 3, 2014, it must be retired before that date unless it has been granted a waiver to operate as an antique as provided in subsection (c).
Subsection (a)(2) provides the maximum mileage for a vehicle. Taxicabs may not appear for a scheduled Authority inspection as provided in § 1017.31 with a mileage over 250,000, unless it has been granted a waiver to operate as an antique as provided in subsection (c). These limitations have been in place in Philadelphia for several years and represent the regulatory status quo; therefore, the continued adherence to these limitations will not create an economic or fiscal impact.
(b) Entry mileage. Subsection (b) provides that a vehicle may not enter service as a taxicab with a mileage of 135,000, unless it has been granted a waiver to operate as an antique as provided in subsection (c). This limitation has been in place in Philadelphia for years and represents the regulatory status quo; therefore, the continued adherence to these limitations will not create an economic or fiscal impact.
(c) Antique vehicles. Subsection (c) provides that taxicabs may be operated in excess of the age and mileage limitations of this section, upon issuance of a waiver based on antique status.
IRRC reflected the concerns of other commentators who questioned the difference in vehicle requirements between taxicabs and limousines. There are many differences between these types of service. Preliminarily, limousines must be equipped with high end accoutrements and generally be a more luxurious type of service. Taxicabs will pass vehicle inspections that limousines would fail based on the condition of a vehicle, particularly the interior. The varying vehicle requirements simply reflect the differing nature of these types of service. While there are varying types of limousine service, our experience has been that taxicabs are used more frequently, in harsher conditions and therefore simply wear out faster than limousines. Most limousines are also purchased new, or nearly new, by certificate holders who employ drivers and regularly inspect and maintain the limousines. The combination of less wear and tear and better maintenance permits most vehicles used as limousines to remain in service longer, while not diminishing the quality of service. However, both the Authority and the PUC agree that there is a point at which even limousines must be retired, which is addressed in our response to comments in § 1055.3. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.333(e).
§ 1017.5. Basic vehicle standards.
Section 1017.5 provides for basic vehicle requirements applicable to taxicabs.
(a). State vehicle standards. Subsection (a) provides that taxicabs must be in continuous compliance with applicable Department of Transportation equipment inspection standards stated in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175 (relating to vehicle equipment and inspection) when providing taxicab service. IRRC commented that the term ''except where those standards are exceeded or otherwise altered by this subpart[.]'' was unclear. We agree with IRRC and have deleted that phrase, although we disagree with a commentator who suggested the Authority does not have the ability to set its own vehicle condition requirements and incorporate here our response to § 1017.3.
(b). Standard taxicab vehicle requirements. Subsection (b) provides a series of specific requirements applicable to taxicabs.
(b)(2). Subsection (b)(2) provides that taxicabs must use the services of a certified dispatcher as required by section 5721 of the act. A commentator noted that drivers should not be required to maintain a relationship with a dispatch association. We agree and note that this subsection creates no such requirement, although a driver may not accept from a certificate holder a taxicab unless it is associated with a certified dispatcher. A certificate holder must have its taxicab inspected each day to assure that it meets the requirements of this section as provided in subsection (f).
Another commentator suggested that the Authority does not have the statutory power to require partial-rights taxicabs to use the services of a certified dispatcher, we disagree with the commentator and believe partial-rights taxicabs are subject to the Authority's sole jurisdiction when operating in Philadelphia as we have noted in response to comments to the definition of ''partial-rights taxicab'' in § 1011.2, which we incorporate here. We also do not believe that a statutory requirement applicable to a particular class of service acts as a prohibition to the application of that requirement to other classes of service. However, we recognize that partial-rights taxicab certificate holders currently dispatch their own taxicabs and will amend this subsection to eliminate the obligation of partial-rights taxicabs to associate with dispatchers.
(b)(3). Subsection (b)(3) of the proposed regulation required the presence of a two-way radio and a mobile data terminal in each taxicab to facilitate dispatcher communication. We have deleted reference in this subsection to a ''mobile data terminal'' because that item is currently a component of the taxicab meter system in place in Philadelphia and requiring it both in this subsection and through subsection (b)(13) is duplicative. Also the term ''radio'' has been deleted from the phrase ''dispatch radio system'' in order to permit the potential technological expansion of dispatching options in Philadelphia beyond mobile data terminals and two-way radios as considered below.
IRRC and other commentators questioned the propriety of the requirement in subsection (b)(3) to maintain a two-way radio in taxicabs, particularly when mobile phones may suffice. Two-way radio communication is a proven commodity used to maintain efficient and cost effective communication lines between taxicab drivers and the centralized dispatch system all taxicabs must use. We agree. The Authority has already granted a waiver authorizing dispatch operations through two-way mobile phones and will continue to analyze evolving technology to consider additional mediums of dispatcher communication. We have amended this subsection to permit alternative forms of dispatch communications, as approved by the Authority. The approval process will permit the Authority to evaluate the two-way radio alternative proposed and assist in our evaluation of the value of changing this requirement through a subsequent rulemaking.
One commentator suggested that partial-rights taxicabs do not fit squarely with this two-way radios requirement. We agree and note that partial rights taxicabs do accept service through advanced reservation, which is communicated to the driver by radio. In fact, partial-rights taxicabs are only permitted to pick up fares outside of their designated areas of operation and inside of Philadelphia, through advanced reservation. Further, these taxicabs currently use two-way radios for this purpose, so this requirement will not create any fiscal impact. We have amended this subsection to note that the obligation to be connected to an approved dispatch system applies to medallion taxicabs and that partial-rights taxicabs that are not associated with a dispatcher must maintain a two-way radio connection with the certificate holder or its agent.
One commentator suggested that all taxicabs be required to have only two-way radios. For the reasons referenced above, we believe that such a limitation would inevitably collide with evolving technology to the detriment of the regulated industries and the public.
(b)(4). Subsection (b)(4) requires the posting of taxicab rates in taxicabs. The phase ''the Authority's uniform'' was deleted in order to add clarity to this subsection.
(b)(6). Subsection (b)(6) requires that each taxicab display the uniform rates for service established by the Authority. A commentator correctly noted that this subsection appeared duplicative of language in subsection (b)(24)(ii), which we have deleted. We have amended subsection (b)(6) to include reference to sections 5703 or 5720 of the act due to the deletion of Chapter 1023.
(b)(12). Subsection (b)(12) provides that taxicabs must be equipped with a protective shield separating the driver from the passenger compartment. A commentator suggested that this provision was only applicable to medallion taxicabs and not partial rights taxicabs. Section 5714(b) of the act requires that ''all taxicabs operating within cities of the first class shall be equipped with a protective barrier for the protection of the driver.'' Taxicab is defined by the act to include partial-rights taxicabs. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701. Partial-rights taxicabs provide taxicab service within Philadelphia. Therefore, this statutory requirement applies to partial-rights taxicabs. A typographical error related to the sequential numbering of the subparagraphs of paragraph (12) is now corrected in the final-form regulation.
The Legislature clearly recognized the safety issues associated with being a taxicab driver in Philadelphia and sought to impose some form or mandatory protect. While we believe technological advances, including the use of surveillance cameras, may provide greater protection, at present these barriers are required by statute. These barriers are also already in every taxicab in Philadelphia, including all partial-rights taxicabs; therefore, there is no increase in operation costs associated with this requirement.
(b)(17). Subsection (b)(17) provides that the passenger seats of a taxicab must be in good order. A typographical error was corrected by inserting the word ''or.''
(b)(19). Subsection (b)(19) requires the interior temperature of a taxicab to be maintained within a certain range.
A commentator suggested this would create an undue burden upon the taxicab industry and damage the environment. The commentator fails to realize that this requirement has applied in Philadelphia since 2005 and has been subject to enforcement since that time; therefore, the industry already complies with this basic requirement and no new cost will be associated with its continuance. This requirement is in place to combat one of the most frequent sources of complaints from the riding public during warmer times of the year, that being the refusal of a taxicab driver to turn on an air conditioning system, or the inoperable nature of such a system in taxicabs. The Authority's Inspectors are equipped with hand held electronic temperature gauges to enforce this regulation, which has required less enforcement activity over the past several years as most taxicabs already comply. The requirement to activate the temperature control system while in a taxi stand only applies when the taxicab approaches the front of the line so that the taxicab is comfortable for passengers upon entry. This requirement has also been in place in Philadelphia since 2005.
(b)(22). Subsection (b)(22) requires taxicabs to be equipped with a map of Philadelphia. IRRC and other commentators questioned the need to maintain a map in each taxicab given the presence of GPS technology available through the taxicab meter system. While the GPS system is very reliable, as with any form of electronic technology reliability is never 100%. In the event the GPS function of the taxicab meter system malfunctions, for any reason, drivers should have a readily accessible means of determining the best route to the customer's destination. The status quo in Philadelphia requires the presence of a map in each taxicab, which can be obtained for less than $5; therefore, this regulation will not increase taxicab operation costs.
(b)(24)(ii). Subsection (b)(24)(ii) requires the posting of taxicab rates in taxicabs. Consistent with our response to comments in subsection (b)(6), we have deleted this paragraph and re-identified each subsequent paragraph.
(b)(24)(iii). Subsection (b)(24)(iii) requires that taxicabs display a posting to provide notice of non-cash fare payment options. A commentator disputed the wisdom of requiring non-cash payment options; however, this subsection only requires the posting of the notice, which will be provided by the Authority at no cost to the certificate holder.
(b)(24)(iv). Subsection (b)(24)(iv) requires that taxicabs display a posting listing passenger rights, which is a standard posting provided by the Authority at no cost to the certificate holder. A commentator suggested that a list of driver rights should also be posted. We agree with the commentator and will continue the present practice of issuing form postings of driver rights and passenger rights at no cost to certificate holders. Regardless of the posting of driver rights, drivers are encouraged to report any crime committed against them to both the Philadelphia Police Department and the Authority.
(c) Interstate drivers. This subsection clarifies that the vehicle requirements of this section are not intended to disrupt or interfere with interstate commerce. The position is stated generally, except for a citation to a specific federal statute. IRRC correctly noted that the citation was inaccurate and questioned the need for this subsection in a section dealing with vehicle requirements. This subsection was not intended to only reference interstate drivers, but only to provide clarity in the event of an inconsistency between these requirements and any federal requirements associated with the regulation of interstate commerce. We believe the guidance this subsection will provide is important and will delete reference to specific federal statutes and amend the title to ''Interstate travel.''
(e)(1). Advertising prohibited. Subsection (e) prohibits the use of advertising in or about a taxicab except for roof top panels, which is the status quo in Philadelphia. Commentators suggested that certificate holders be permitted to advertise without limitation. Taxicabs in Philadelphia use a certain colors and marking scheme to identify each dispatcher. We believe that external advertisements beyond that permitted on the roof panel will interfere with the distinctive markings currently required in Philadelphia and as continued by these final-form regulations. The PUC maintains this same requirement at 52 Pa. Code § 29.402(3). The distinctive colors and markings of taxicabs not only assist dispatchers in developing a brand, but greatly assist the Authority in the investigations of complaints by passengers who do not recall the name or number of the taxicab. We are also concerned that such advertising will obscure vehicle identification numbers and may impede unobstructed views for drivers and passengers. We further believe that interior advertising will distract attention from the limited space available for notices. However, we note that we have granted waivers from this provision in the past. We have added language to this section to clarify that such waiver options are available.
(f). Inspection by certificate holder. Subsection (f) requires a certificate holder to inspect its taxicab on a daily basis. IRRC and other commentators suggested that when a taxicab is leased the certificate holder will not have access to the taxicab in order to conduct such an inspection. The Authority's administrative hearing records are replete with examples of certificate holders who seek to pass along their obligation to properly maintain a taxicab to a taxicab driver through a lease. The driver is generally the individual least financially capable of providing proper vehicle maintenance. That scenario, in which the most financially capable person in the taxicab relationship is relieved of maintenance obligations, results in the operation of poorly maintained vehicles, which places the public safety as issue and debases taxicab service.
However, we agree with IRRC's concern that even the certificate holder with the highest standards of service may be precluded from daily inspections of taxicabs that are subject to a lease agreement. We accept IRRC's suggestion to grant the certificate holder the discretion to select another person to conduct these inspections on the certificate holder's behalf, without absolving the certificate holder of the obligation to assure that its taxicabs continually comply with this section.
§ 1017.6. Required documents.
Section 1017.6 requires that certain documents be continually present in taxicabs. A commentator questioned the meaning of ''proof of vehicle ownership.'' As used in this section that term means the registration card issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. This section does not relate to inspections of vehicles upon entry into taxicab service as a commentator appeared to note in one comment.
§ 1017.7. Transportation of blind, deaf or physically disabled persons with service animals.
Section 1017.17 requires taxicab service providers to transport leashed animals, including guide dogs. A typographical error was corrected in this section by changing the reference to ''disable persons'' to ''disabled persons.''
Subchapter B. Colors and markings § 1017.11. Distinctive colors and markings.
Section 1017.11 describes the color, marking, and dispatcher requirements for both city-wide and partial-rights taxicab companies. Consistent with our responses to §§ 1017.4 and 1017.5, which we incorporate here, we have deleted subsection (b)(3) dealing with the association of partial-rights taxicabs with dispatchers.
§ 1017.12. Required markings and information.
Section 1017.12 provides for certain markings and information that will need to be displayed on each taxicab.
(a)(1). Section (a)(1) requires that the taxicab identification number be posted on the front fenders of the taxicab and on the rear of the taxicab in print 5 inches high or larger. The print size requirement has been reduced from 5 inches to ''at least 3 inches in height and at least 1/2 inch in width.'' This change is consistent with our response to comments to subsection (a)(2). However, the height of the taxicab identification number is slightly larger than the minimum height requirement in subsection (a)(2) because the number is generally easier for the riding public to remember and is more specific as to which taxicab is at issue. For that reason we believe the taxicab identification number should meet this height requirement. Although, certificate holders are free to print all letters in this size. There will be no other required lettering on the rear of the taxicab to compete with this size numbering requirement.
(a)(2). Section (a)(2) requires that the name of each taxicab certificate holder be displayed on the front fenders of each taxicab. The PUC has a similar requirement for taxicabs. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.71. Commentators suggested that the Authority's size requirement for taxicab numbers (5 inches) is in conflict with the PUC's requirement of ''at least 2 inches in height and at least 1/2 inch in width.'' See 52 Pa. Code § 29.71(a). The five inch letter requirement has been in place in Philadelphia since 2005 and does not conflict with the PUC requirement. A taxicab that is compliance with the Authority's regulation will also be in compliance with the PUC's regulation, provided the lettering is at least 1/2 inch wide, which they all currently are in Philadelphia. However, we agree that the inclusion of the name of the certificate holder in conjunction with the vehicle's numbers may not permit for sufficient space. Therefore, we will use the PUC's ''at least 2 inches in height and at least 1/2 inch in width'' standard.
IRRC and other commentators questioned the need for this provision given the number of certificate holders in Philadelphia. Our experience has been that the public is often confused about who owns a taxicab. The Authority routinely fields requests for the name of taxicab owners that would otherwise be easily obtained by simply looking at the vehicle. The public often wrongly presumes the dispatcher is the owner of the taxicab. Specific knowledge about the owner of the taxicab will assist the public in reporting complaints and even in selecting preferred taxicab service providers, which we hope will be some small incentive to provide better service. We have added language to permit the continued operation of taxicabs without this marking requirement through the vehicle's first scheduled inspection after January 1, 2012, to permit the regulated industry time to come into compliance. Because each taxicab certificate holder is responsible for assuring that its taxicabs are properly painted and otherwise marked, the name of the certificate holder can be easily attached to the vehicle at the time it is outfitted for taxicab service, just as is done in every other county in Pennsylvania under the PUC's jurisdiction.
§ 1017.13. Removal of name, colors and markings.
Section 1017.13 prohibits vehicles from impersonating a certified taxicab and requires the removal of the markings that identify a vehicle as a taxicab within 72 hours of the removal of the vehicle from taxicab service. This practice is currently in place in Philadelphia.
Commentators suggested that vehicle owners have been subject to administrative penalties in the past for not sufficiently removing the name, colors and markings on vehicles upon removal from taxicab service. We believe that is true and that type of reasonable enforcement is necessary. Vehicles with partially removed taxicab colors have been found to provide illegal service in the past. Once removed from taxicab service a vehicle must adequately remove the identifying markings that advertise it as a taxicab. To permit otherwise would permit unauthorized vehicles to, at a minimum, appear to offer taxicab service, create public confusion and assist illegal service providers. Certificate owners may avail themselves of the administrative adjudication process to dispute the validity of a citation issued for failure to follow this section. See § 1005.13.
§ 1017.14. Taxicab numbering.
Section 1017.14 provides for certain numbering requirements related to taxicabs.
(b) Partial-rights taxicabs. Subsection (b) requires partial-rights taxicabs certificate owners to number their vehicles in sequence. A typographical error in paragraph (2) has been corrected by changing the term ''if it determines'' to ''if it is determined.''
Commentators seemed to claim that this subsection is a burden because some partial-rights taxicabs also have to comply with PUC sequential numbering requirements. This section is a continuation of the rule in place in Philadelphia since 2005, which has not created a problem of the nature theorized by the commentator despite the on-going dual regulation of those vehicles by the PUC and the Authority and we do not believe that it will in the future. We also note that the Authority's regulation is more flexible than the requirements of the PUC as expressed by the commentator. The Authority does not require that taxicabs owned by partial-rights taxicabs certificate holders without Authority rights be numbered sequentially with taxicabs that do have Authority rights.
Subchapter C. Meters § 1017.21. Taxicab meters.
Section 1017.21 generally provides for the condition of meters, including the need to have each meter sealed by the Authority.
§ 1017.22. Meter calibration and testing.
Section 1017.22 generally provides for the calibrating of taxicab meters by the Authority. A typographical error in subsection (a) has been corrected by deleting changing the word ''calculates'' to ''calculate.''
§ 1017.23. Approved meters.
Section 1017.23 provides a process through which the Authority will identify meters approved for use in Philadelphia taxicabs. IRRC commented that the list of approved meters was not posted on the Authority's web site at www.philapark.org/tld. That oversight has been corrected. The web site we have identified in the regulations will immediately display the TLD's home site and display links to the various forms, notices, or lists applicable to the regulated industry. We decline to use a more specific link than the one provided out of concern that it may be corrupted or changed at some point causing confusion among the regulated community. This list is now very easy to locate.
IRRC suggested, based on averments of other commentators, that only one meter has been approved by the Authority. Representative Mark B. Cohen and other commentators commented that multiple GPS and credit card processing service providers should be permitted. There are technically four approved meters: two meters for medallion taxicabs and two meters for partial-rights taxicabs. For medallion taxicabs, there is only one approved meter system because that new system was purchased with taxicab fund money as part of the hospitality initiative mandated by Section 23(2) of the act. The meter system was selected through a public request for proposal process after consideration by the Authority's Board at a Sunshine Act meeting.
That new meter system includes credit card payment options, automatic paper receipt capability, two-way communication between the taxicab and the dispatcher or the Authority, an emergency assistance button in the driver's area of the vehicle, GPS functions, and several other technological advances designed to improve the quality of taxicab service. Similar systems now exist in New Your City, Las Vegas and other major cities in the United States and Europe. The Authority has delayed the final implementation of its contract, which will include hardware and software upgrades, pending the final determination of these regulations.
The approved medallion taxicab meters are integrally linked to the overall meter system; therefore, random meters will not be approved for service without complete compatibility with the overall system. The meter system and the approved medallion taxicab meters are performing at a very high level, with very few complaints. However, a regulated party may seek the use of an alternative meter through a waiver petition as provided in § 1005.23. We also incorporate our response to comments to § 1017.24 related to credit card processing issues.
§ 1017.24. Meter activation and display.
Section 1017.24 provides for the capabilities that taxicab meters must have and for the manner in which those meters must be used.
(a) and (b). Subsections (a) and (b) provide instructions on the point of a fare at which the meter must be engaged and when it must be disengaged. A commentator suggested that taxicabs be permitted to engage the meter before a passenger is in the taxicab and while a passenger is exiting a taxicab. We agree that the language of the proposed regulation was unnecessarily restrictive and have deleted the language of these subsections entirely. The final-form regulation will employ the meter engagement concept used by the PUC's regulation on this issue. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.314(b)(7), but will also note that a meter may not be in operation before a passenger engages the services of the taxicab. For example, a taxicab driver may not place the meter in operation upon being hailed by a potential passenger until the taxicab comes to a safe and legal stop at a point that the hailing party can safely enter the taxicab. This change will permit the flexibility necessary for taxicab drivers to be compensated for time associated with the loading and unloading of passengers and continue the established practice for taxicab meter engagement.
(d)(4). Subsection (d)(4) requires all taxicab meters to accept fare payment by credit card, and caps the credit card processing fee applicable to those transactions at five percent of the fare's value. This is a cap and not a mandatory fee.
IRRC and other commentators questioned the reasonableness of this five percent fee and if the credit card processing function was subject to competition by multiple vendors. The five percent cap for credit card processing fees has been in place in Philadelphia for several years. Prior to that time, it was not unusual for dispatchers to charge drivers a fee of ten percent or more to process credit card payments. It is this abuse that the Authority's five percent cap has cured and we believe it is crucial to the stability of the taxicab industry to maintain that cap. This cap has reduced the fees charged to drivers by at least half over the past eight years. This cap does not restrict the use of a lower processing fee. The five percent maximum fee was competitively bid as a component of the meter system, as referenced in our response to comments to § 1017.23 above, the credit card processing function was also a component of the proposal process.
IRRC also questioned whether the five percent cap was over market rates for ''other businesses.'' Again, the five percent cap is a ceiling above which fees may not be charged. We do not believe that it is appropriate to compare a rate ceiling with an actual rate that may be charges to a particular vendor. Many vendors benefit from lower transaction rates for a variety of reasons, including the vendor's credit worthiness, volume of transactions, tenure in business and overall financial stability. When this process started many drivers, who are all independent contractors, did not have personal bank accounts into which funds could be deposited. However, we know for certain that before this rate ceiling was put in place through the Authority's regulations in 2005, drivers were often charged ten percent or more for these transactions, that is why a cap was employed. Upon the resolution of this regulatory promulgation process, and the return of regulatory stability to Philadelphia's taxicab industry, we will continue our negotiations with the current vendor of the meter system to obtain even lower transaction rates.
For a more direct comparison to comparable markets, maximum credit card processing fees in other major cities have been as follows:
• New York City 5% • Miami 5% • Boston 6% • Las Vegas 5% • Atlanta 7—10% • San Francisco 5% • Chicago 5% The Authority will continually review options for reducing credit card processing fees charged to drivers. We believe the continuation of the status quo in Philadelphia of capping those fees is in the best interest of the regulated industries and the public and is a reasonable exercise of the Authority's regulatory power.
Commentators also questioned the applicability of this section to partial-rights taxicabs. For the reasons we have identified above in response to comments to the definition of ''partial-rights taxicab'' in § 1011.1, we believe that partial-rights taxicabs should provide the public with the basic meter requirements provided in this section. However, we recognize that some of the more technologically advanced requirements of this section may place an unreasonable burden upon some partial-rights taxicab certificate holders and have deleted this requirement from the final-form regulations. Therefore, we believe we have addressed the concerns of commentators about the fiscal impact of this section upon partial-rights taxicabs.
Commentators also suggested that the tracking of taxicab operations through the GPS function of the meter system was outside of the Authority's scope. We disagree. Taxicab operations are and have always been a heavily regulated industry. Taxicabs always advertise their services, even when a driver may claim he or she is not seeking a fare. Taxicab regulation is based upon the close contact taxicabs have with customers and the potential for abuse or harm to passengers at the hands of drivers and vice versa. The GPS component has and will continue to improve driver safety through the use of the emergency button. When activated by a driver under distress, both the Authority and the taxicab's dispatcher will know where a driver is in order to direct police attention. The GPS function has also been used to locate countless taxicabs on behalf of passengers who left behind valuable items after exiting the taxicab. The GPS function has been used to assist the police in investigating crimes inflicted upon taxicab drivers or by taxicab drivers upon others. The manner in which taxicabs offer service or appear to offer service is squarely within the scope of the Authority's regulatory powers, regardless of when it happens. Also, taxicab drivers are not prohibited from using their own GPS units, in addition to that included in the meter system.
Commentators questioned the impact of this section upon the taxicab meters currently installed in medallion taxicabs. The current medallion taxicab meters fully comply with the requirements of this section.
§ 1017.25. One meter.
Section 1017.25 provides that a taxicab may be equipped with only one meter. In the past, some drivers have skirted the requirement to use sealed and calibrated meters by switching the approved meters for illegal meters, which had been manipulated to charge higher fares. In those cases the extra meter was usually hidden under the front car seat of the vehicle when encountered by Authority Inspectors. Commentators suggested that partial-rights taxicab operators may be unable to comply with this requirement because they may charge different rates in non-Philadelphia service related areas. We note that this is an existing requirement and that partial-rights taxicab operators have been using one meter for this exact purpose since at least 2005. This regulation represents the regulatory status quo in Philadelphia and is in the best interests of the public as we have noted above.
§ 1017.26. Certificate holder responsible.
Section 1017.26 requires certificate holders to inspect their taxicab meters each day to assure that all meters are properly sealed. It is crucial that the inter-workings of a meter be sealed in order to prevent manipulation of the rate calibration.
Commentators raised concerns related to the ability of a certificate holder to conduct these inspections on a daily basis and again suggested that the taxicab driver is the appropriate party to supervise and repair taxicabs, as opposed to the certificate holder or the owner of the medallion worth more than $300,000. We incorporate our response to comments made to § 1017.5(f). We have made a similar modification to this section in the final-form regulation to permit agents of the certificate holder to inspect the meters, without alleviating the certificate holder of ultimate responsibility for the condition of the meter.
Commentators suggested that this inspection requirement is antiquated because the certificate holder derives no revenue from the operation of the taxicab meter. The commentator misses the point. The certificate holder reaps the benefit from the improved quality of taxicab service in Philadelphia through the ever increasing value of medallions. It would be inconsistent with the intent of the act, and the public good generally, to promulgate regulations that absolve certificate holders of any obligation to supervise and properly maintain the public utilities that they own.
[Continued on next Web Page]
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.
