[41 Pa.B. 6499]
[Saturday, December 3, 2011]

[Continued from previous Web Page]

Subchapter D. Taxicab inspections

§ 1017.31. Biannual inspections by Authority.

 Subsection 1017.31 requires taxicabs to submit to two pre-scheduled bi-annual inspections by the Authority. The ability to conduct thorough examinations of the vehicles used to provide taxicab service is crucial to maintaining a clean, safe and reliable fleet of taxicabs. Over the past 8 fiscal years the City of Philadelphia has experienced a significant increase in to quality of these vehicles. We believe that improvement is tied directly to the pre-scheduled bi-annual inspection process continued through this regulation.

 We continually strived to reduce the time necessary to complete these inspections and have made significant improvements over the years, aided by a dedicated inspection station located within minutes of Center City, the Philadelphia International Airport, and Philadelphia's sports stadium complex. We believe that our existing procedure, which is continued in these final-form regulations, is the most efficient and thorough manner in which to conduct taxicab inspections. In the Authority's inspection facility the inspectors are experience in dealing with taxicabs and have the resources, including a safe vehicle lift, to conduct quality inspections.

 Again and again we observe that those certificate holders who maintain their vehicles properly generally clear these inspections easily and then quickly return to service. Unfortunately, many certificate holders operate their taxicabs with the minimum amount of maintenance possible to keep the vehicle on the street. Those certificate holders often encounter delays associated with either an inspection failure or the need to make repairs to their vehicle and reappear at another inspection.

 The Authority's scheduled inspections of taxicabs (meaning the certificate holder and driver knew weeks in advance that the vehicle would be inspected) have revealed many truly egregious conditions, including the following:

 • An overwhelmingly bad odor from the interior of the vehicle was discovered to be a decomposing rodent. The certificate owner attempted to conceal the odor with multiple hanging air fresheners.

 • Upon inspection, the carpeting in the passenger compartment of a taxicab appeared loose. Upon lifting the carpet the inspector observed the floor of the inspection station. The floor of the vehicle had completely rotted away long before it was presented for inspection.

 • Tires so worn that the steel belts are showing (this is unfortunately common).

 • Holes in the floor of a taxicab that are repaired by attaching license plates to the floor with steel screws.

 • Exhaust system leaks into to passenger compartment.

 • Repeated cases of improperly manipulated wiring creating fire hazards. In one case, the headlights of the taxicab came on every time the brakes were pressed.

 • Shock absorbers welded to the shock tower.

 • Metal bumpers and frames with damage so severe the vehicle cannot be safely operated. In one case, a ''repair'' to a taxicab amounted to the removal of the steel bumper and the replacement of the bumper cover only, which was then held in place with piano cord.

 • One driver was using the taxicab's engine to cook his dinner at the time it was presented for inspection (cans of stew and chili were warming on the manifold).

 With limited staffing, the Authority is simply not able to continually patrol the entire City of Philadelphia in search of these conditions, although we do make every reasonable effort to do so. This organized and thorough biannual inspection process is fundamental to Authority's ability to achieve the Legislative purposes of the act.

 A commentator suggested that this section makes partial-rights taxicabs more heavily regulated than medallion taxicabs, because medallion taxicabs are not subject to regulation by the PUC. We incorporate our response to comments to the definition of ''partial-rights taxicab'' in § 1011.2 here.

 Partial-rights taxicabs are in a uniquely beneficial position in the taxicab industry. These carriers may provide taxicab service in areas of Philadelphia reserved for medallion taxicabs, without need to buy a medallion and with the ability to operate an unlimited number of taxicabs on one certificate of public convenience. Those certificate holders may also use those same taxicabs to provide service outside of Philadelphia, while statutes and regulations prohibit medallion taxicabs from doing the same.

 Partial-rights taxicab certificate holders are free to self-designate taxicabs as Authority or PUC only, in which case those taxicabs would not be subject to dual inspection requirements. However, most partial-rights taxicab certificate holders opt to cross-designate their taxicabs to maximize the value of being able to legally operate inside and outside of Philadelphia. To the extent that those carriers seek to provide taxicab service within Philadelphia, this section simply holds them to the same standard applied to the other taxicab certificate holders. This has been the practice in Philadelphia since 2005.

§ 1017.32. TLD inspection sticker required.

 Section 1017.32 provides for the manner in which state vehicle inspection and Authority regulatory stickers are issued and attached to taxicabs. A commentator suggested that if a partial-rights taxicab failed a state vehicle inspection the carrier would be unfairly penalized because the taxicab would be unable to provide taxicab service in PUC regulated areas. Taxicabs are not immune from the Commonwealth's vehicle inspections standards, regardless of which county the taxicab services. Therefore, we disagree with the commentator's suggestion that regulatory jurisdiction is relevant to the state inspection requirement.

§ 1017.33. Failure to appear for scheduled inspection.

 Section 1017.33 provides for a fee to be imposed upon a certificate holder in the event a vehicle is scheduled for inspection by the Authority, but fails to appear. IRRC raised several questions related to this rescheduling fee. To eliminate confusion related to this issue, we have deleted reference to the fee and clarified the language related to the imposition of penalties for failing to appear for inspection. The penalty process is initiated through formal complaint.

§ 1017.34. Field inspections.

 Section 1017.34 provides for field inspections of taxicabs by the Authority. The ability to investigate the operation of taxicabs while they are in service is crucial to the Authority's ability to achieve the legislative intent of the act. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1. In response to comments, we note that the Authority's Inspectors are routinely trained and re-trained in terms of the appropriate manner in which to conduct a field inspection of taxicabs, in the least intrusive manner possible, both for the benefit of the taxicab driver and potential passengers. The Authority does not conduct field inspections of taxicabs while a passenger is in the vehicle, absent some exigent circumstance, including a request by a passenger.

§ 1017.35. Failure to submit to field inspection.

 Section 1017.35 provides for procedures related to the initiation of taxicab field inspections. We have amended subsection (b) by removing the mandatory out of service designation for failing to submit to a field inspection. Instead, the discretion to initiate that process will be with the Enforcement Department. A commentator questioned the subjective nature of Authority Inspectors when imposing the potential $1,000 fine for refusing to yield to a field inspection request. We believe the penalty provisions of § 1001.61 will suffice to provide notice of certain penalties and have removed this section from the final-form regulations. Any penalty may only be enforced through the formal complaint process. Through that process a driver will be afforded the opportunity to participate in an on the record hearing before a presiding officer of the Authority's Adjudication Department. This section does not reference the impoundment of taxicabs.

§ 1017.36. Reinspection.

 Section 1017.36 requires a taxicab that fails an Authority vehicle inspection to submit to another inspection prior to reinitiating taxicab service. A commentator suggested that the Authority's Fee Schedule should charge a flat fee for vehicle inspections, regardless of the need for multiple inspections of the same vehicle. This issue may be addressed through the fee schedule process. The Authority adheres to standard practice related to fees charged for state inspections.

§ 1017.37. Inspection subsequent to vehicular accident or damage.

 Section 1017.37 provides standards related to the removal and re-entry of taxicabs from active service following certain types of accidents.

 Unfortunately, taxicabs damaged in motor vehicle accidents or other incidents are often repaired in a manner that would cause the vehicle to fail an Authority inspection, if one were immediately conducted. Too often, the rush to return the damaged taxicab to active service in order to generate revenue trumps the time and costs associated with completing the needed repairs properly. Absent a provision in the regulations requiring removal of the taxicabs from service and an inspection prior to re-initiation of taxicab service, these poorly repaired vehicles will continue to service the public until the next scheduled bi-annual Authority inspection or review through a field inspection by pure happenstance. These are not hypothetical scenarios, but are instead unfortunately common and are completely inconsistent with the legislative intent of the act. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1. For that reason, the proposed regulation established several repair thresholds requiring removal of a taxicab from service and an inspection prior to returning to service.

 (a). Subsection (a) requires removal from service in the event a taxicab is engaged in an incident listed in this subsection. IRRC suggested the deletion of subsections (a)(2) and (5) from the list of threshold removal requirements because they were vague or superfluous. We agree and have deleted paragraphs (2) and (5) and renumbered the remaining paragraphs as necessary.

 IRRC and other commentators have suggested that subsection (a)(3), which requires the removal of a taxicab in the event it suffers damage that requires more than $500 to repair, is also vague and potentially confusing. We agree that the use of a threshold dollar figure is not sufficiently narrowly tailored. Instead, we have identified three major components of a vehicle that if damaged and in need of repair will require the immediate removal of the vehicle from taxicab service. Those components are airbags or passenger restraints (seat belts), an axel or the vehicles frame. These are bright line safety related issues that will permit the Authority to adequately monitor the quality of major post-accident repairs, but release drivers and certificate holders from the obligation to remove taxicabs from operation and report accidents resulting in relatively minor repairs.

 (b). Subsection (b) requires the certificate holder and driver to contact the Manager of Enforcement and remove the damaged vehicle from taxicab service upon the occurrence of an incident listed in subsection (a).

 IRRC commented that in some cases the driver and certificate holder may be required to contact the police and that the language of this subsection should be altered to provide for that event. We disagree and believe that the term ''immediately'' is neither overly broad nor suggestive of an obligation to ignore emergency medical care, police interaction or standard accident scene contingencies simply to inform the Authority that an accident has occurred. However, the problem this subsection seeks to prevent is the rapid and slipshod repair to vehicles that may be conducted in a matter of hours after an accident covered by subsection (a), therefore, we believe this language must remain in order to prevent the fraud it targets. IRRC noted that § 1021.15 also contains a post-accident reporting requirement. IRRC asked for an explanation of the need for each section. While § 1021.15 does provide for a reporting requirement, it does not require removal of a taxicab from service. The language of this subsection dealing with the reporting requirement is integral to the overall understanding of this subsection related to the scenarios identified in subsection (a). This section does not conflict with § 1021.15, but has been amended to clarify that accidents of the nature addressed in this section should first be reported to the police and then the ''Manager of Enforcement.''

 (c). This subsection provides that a vehicle removed from taxicab service as provided in this section may not return to active service until it has completed an Authority compliance inspection. IRRC identified a typographical error in this section found at the reference to subsection ''(b)'' which has been changed in the final-form regulation to ''(a).'' A commentator suggested that language be added to this section to relieve the taxicab driver of lease requirements if it was determined that the driver was not at fault in the vehicle accident. We believe that a determination of liability for an accident would be simply too difficult to rapidly achieve and may be outside of our jurisdiction.

 Subsection (c) has also been amended to clarify that the Authority will not charge a fee for vehicle inspections conducted pursuant to this subsection.

§ 1017.38. Change of vehicle.

 Section 1017.38 provides for an inspection at the time a vehicle used as a medallion taxicab is substituted with another vehicle or when a new vehicle is added to a partial-rights taxicab certificate holder's list, including replacements of retiring vehicles. A commentator suggested that this requirement is burdensome. The Authority strives to minimize the amount of time associated with these routine vehicle inspections; however, we believe it is crucial that each taxicab complete a compliance inspection prior to the time it initiates taxicab service. This regulation continues a practice in place in Philadelphia since 2005.

§ 1017.39. License plate change.

 Section 1017.39 requires a taxicab to submit to a compliance inspection in the event that the certificate holder changes the license plate. Taxicabs are required by the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles to have special license plates, which clearly identify the vehicle as a taxicab. A commentator questioned the need for this inspection. We agree that this section can continue with only a reporting requirement associated with the replacement of a taxicab's license plated and have amended subsection (b) accordingly.

§ 1017.40. Transfer inspection.

 Section 1017.40 requires a taxicab that is subject to a sale to be inspected by the Authority prior to being operated by the new owner.

§ 1017.41. Attendance at scheduled inspection.

 Section 1017.41 requires the certificate holder or its attorney in fact (an agent) to be present when the certificate holder's taxicab appears for inspection by the Authority. The inspection of taxicabs is one of the most crucial tools the Authority has to ensure clean, safe and reliable service, particularly given the advanced age of the taxicab fleet in Philadelphia. The certificate holder attendance obligation has been in effect in Philadelphia since 2005; therefore, there will be no additional cost associated with its implementation. The agents used by certificate holders tend to be employees or associates of the certificate holder.

 IRRC questioned the need to have a certificate holder or hired attorney present at the vehicle inspection. There is no reason to have a licensed attorney present at a vehicle inspection, although a certificate holder could appoint one if they desired. This regulation requires the certificate holder or an agent to be present in order to rapidly address vehicle condition issues. This is not a typical family car vehicle inspection. These vehicles transport the public for compensation and have a heightened obligation to do so safely. These inspections frequently reveal the need for expensive safety repairs. Inspections are commonly discontinued to permit the certificate holder or its agent to repair the vehicle and then resubmit it for inspection by the Authority, often in the same day. This rapid decision making process avoids an out-of-service designation and requires the participation of the certificate holder, directly or through an agent. The certificate holder is responsible for maintaining its taxicabs, not the driver that may be leasing the taxicab for a given 12 hour shift.

 The ability to use an agent gives the certificate holder the option to appear, or not, at inspections, and adequately addresses the Authority's concern about having a competent person present to address vehicle condition issues promptly, including issues that may require the immediate removal of the vehicle from taxicab service.

§ 1017.42. Prerequisites to inspection.

 Section 1017.42 provides that a taxicab will not be accepted for a scheduled inspection by the Authority if either the taxicab or certificate holder is out of compliance with the act or specified provision of the regulations. A commentator noted that outstanding and unappealed parking violations accrued by taxicab drivers may prohibit a certificate holder from having its taxicab inspected. Because a certificate holder is able to transfer liability for parking tickets to the applicable driver of the taxicab through the Fleet Program provided for in § 1011.6, we believe outstanding parking violations accrued by drivers will not prohibit taxicabs from being inspected.

 In subsection (b)(3) we amended the title of § 1011.7 to reflect the changes noted in our response to comments to that section.

§ 1017.43. Approved models and conditions.

 Section 1017.43 provides that the Authority will maintain a list of vehicles by make and model that may be used to provide taxicab service. IRRC suggested that the Authority amend this section to make clear that the list is not exclusive and may be amended upon written request to the Authority. We agree with IRRC's suggestion and have made those changes.

 A commentator suggested that the list of approved vehicles should match the PUC's list or at least be consistent with the regulations. We cannot constrain our discretion as to permissible makes and models of vehicles used to provide taxicab service to another agency. The final-form regulations do provide certain criteria, such as the number of doors, leg room parameters, trunk capacity, etc., against which additions to this list will be measured. See § 1017.5.

§ 1017.44. Reconstructed vehicles prohibited.

 Section 1017.44 provides that salvaged or reconstructed vehicles are not allowed to provide taxicab service.

Subchapter E. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment

§ 1017.51. General.

 Section 1017.51 defines the following terms for Subchapter E. Impoundment of Vehicles and Equipment: (1) vehicle; (2) registered owner; and (3) registered lienholder.

§ 1017.52. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment.

 Section 1017.52 provides for the impoundment of taxicabs, medallions and taxicab service related equipment for violation of the act or the Authority's regulations. The purpose of this section is to provide guidance on the manner in which section 5714(g) of the act will be implemented by the Authority. The procedures identified in this section, including those related to the manner in which impounded property may be recovered. A typographical error in subsection (b) has been corrected by deleting ''or'' and inserting ''of.''

 (e). Public auction. Subsection (e) notes that confiscated property may be subject to public auction as provided in section 5714(g)(2)(i) of the act. The language of this subsection in the proposed regulation mingled the timeline related to reclaiming confiscated property with the auctioning process in a manner that was not incorrect, but was unclear. This section has been amended to eliminate that statutory reference and language related to recovery of impounded property and now deals solely with the issue of auctioning.

 (f). Return of funds. Subsection (f) requires the Authority to return any funds paid by the respondent related to towing and storage of the impounded property if the impoundment is determined to be unsubstantiated by a presiding officer. Section 5714(g) of the act does not contain such a provision. A commentator suggested that subsection (f) was unfair because it required only the refund of towing and storage costs and not lost profits, etc. This provision was included in this section to reduce the effect of errant impoundments upon regulated parties. In these cases the Authority will lose the funds that reimbursed its time and costs associated with the impoundment. Beyond the Authority's general obligation to act reasonably (which may be reviewed by the Adjudication Department and appellate courts), we believe that this economic disincentive to the Authority will also act as an incentive to carefully implement the impoundment powers provided in section 5714(g) of the act.

 (h). Emergency hold on impounded property. Subsection (h) permits the Enforcement Department or Trial Counsel to seek an order from a presiding officer prohibiting the release of impounded property pending the conclusion of the enforcement proceeding. A commentator suggested that subsection (h) was unreasonable because the owner should be able to return the vehicle to active service. We note that section 5714(g) of the act does not require the release of impounded property prior to the final determination of the enforcement action. We have developed this early release process to mitigate economic harm to the respondent. Subsection (h) simply permits the Authority stay the release of the impounded property if good cause exists. In the event the release is stayed the underlying enforcement action must proceed on an expedited basis.

 A commentator suggests that partial-rights taxicabs may not be impounded by the Authority pursuant to this section or section 5714 of the act, even if discovered to be providing service as a medallion taxicab without ownership or display of a medallion. We disagree with the commentator's argument, which relies heavily on misinterpretations of that section of the act. For instance, partial-rights taxicabs determined to be in the course of providing medallion taxicab service do so ''without a certificate of public convenience and a medallion'' in violation of section 5714(f). The commentator seems to believe that impoundments, under the act, may only be conducted if that subsection (f) has been violated. As we have noted, the partial-rights taxicab would have been in violation of subsection (f) and; therefore, subject to impoundment under subsection (g) of section 5714 of the act, even under the commentator's logic. More importantly, section 5714(g) of the act, which deals with impound procedures, was specifically amended by the Legislature to expand the scope of potential impoundments from not only statutory violations, but also acts ''which are in violation of regulations of the authority.'' Therefore, we disagree with the commentator's position and believe this section is both consistent with the act and a vital tool necessary to securing the act's goals. We believe this section will address concerns and comments related to the process through which vehicles may be impounded, instead of relying solely on the statutory language.

Subchapter F. Taxicab leases

§ 1017.61. Control of vehicle.

 Section 1017.61 establishes the principle that certificate owners are responsible to supervise the conduct of their taxicabs. The purpose of this section is to clarify that the owners may not pass their duty to maintain their taxicabs to the most financially ill-equipped members of the taxicab industry, the drivers. Certificate holders may not act as absentee lessors. A commentator suggested that a certificate holder cannot watch a taxicab to make certain it is being operated properly at all times, which is true. But the certificate holder is the owner of the right to provide this public utility service and must remain actively involved in supervising its taxicabs; this does not require constant monitoring but reasonable review.

§ 1017.62. Taxicab leases.

 Section 1017.62 provides certain guidelines related to the leasing of taxicabs. Because the certificate holder (including medallion owners) must own the vehicle used to provide taxicab service, there is no need to address medallion only leases. See § 1011.9 (relating to taxicab service limitations).

 The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee and another commentator suggested that the Authority should impose a standard taxicab lease agreement upon all regulated parties and include a ''whistleblower'' provision. Other commentators suggested that the language of the proposed regulation was overly broad and interfered too greatly in the owner-driver relationship. We believe that the revised version of this final-form regulation is currently sufficient to address concerns related to abuse in the contracting process; however, we will monitor lease arrangements and do not dismiss the potential for the use of a form lease agreement in the future.

 We note that the Authority is empowered to investigate rates and lease related issues as provided in section 5720(c) of the act. In the event a standard form lease is determined to be necessary, we will seek the input of the regulated community through public comment and standard investigation proceedings in regard to the content of such a standard lease. While this regulation maintains the status quo in Philadelphia by not requiring a specific form of lease agreement, we recognize the validity of the comments submitted in that regard and will include those comments in any investigatory review of this issue in the future. A commentator suggested that subleases of taxicabs without the involvement of the certificate holder should be permitted. We disagree and believe that the further direct legal and operational connections between the driver and owner are the lower the amount of certificate holder involvement in the operation of the taxicab will be. We believe that type of separation is not in the best interests of maintaining quality vehicles and service.

 Proposed (b). Transfer of obligations. Subsection (b) of the proposed regulations provided that taxicab certificate holders may not transfer their statutory or regulatory obligations to another party, including taxicab drivers. A commentator suggested that this subsection be more specific as to what obligations may not be transferred, we believe this subsection to be sufficiently clear. We have received numerous comments from medallion owners who indicate that this provision would constitute a significant change to the regulatory status quo in Philadelphia. We agree and have deleted this subsection from the final-form regulations. We will include the reintroduction of this requirement in our consideration of future rulemakings related to driver owned vehicle issues.

 Final-form (b). Basic components of a lease. Final-form subsection (b) requires each taxicab lease to include certain information.

 A commentator suggested that a form lease must include a variety of additional information, apparently intended to protect the driver, including lease cap figures, and minimum wages for the lessee drivers. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to require minimum wages for lessee non-employees; also, the current lease caps will be posted on the Authority's web site at www.philapark.org/tld, negating the potential for outdated rate information in lease documents. Drivers or certificate holders may petition the Authority to initiate an investigation into the need for adjustments to rates as provided in section 5720 of the act. We also believe that the language of final-form subsection (b)(4) sufficiently provides for the existence of non-monetary lease consideration between drivers and certificate holders, without subverting any other requirements of this section and will decline the request of a commentator to add specific prohibitions to that subsection.

 Final-form (b)(4). Final-form subsection (b)(4) requires each taxicab lease to include the monetary amount of the lease. This subsection has been amended only to delete reference to proposed § 1017.63, which has been deleted in the final-form regulations.

 Final-form (b)(7). Final-form subsection (b)(7) requires the parties to a taxicab lease to provide 10 days' notice of the lease termination. We agree with commentators who suggest that this provision does not adequately consider leases that may be less than 10 days, as well as the potential for breach. We have amended this subsection to provide that the notice be equal to the term of the lease, if the lease has a term of less than 10 days. We have also clarified that this lease termination language does not relate to cases of breach. The purpose of this section is to provide non-breaching drivers with some advanced notice of the termination of their taxicab leases to permit time to seek out a new taxicab lessor.

 Final-form (b)(9). IRRC commented that final-form subsection (b)(9) failed to take into account varied relationships between drivers and medallion owners, we disagree. In the event the owner of a taxicab leases its taxicab to a taxicab driver, these provisions will apply. As we noted in response to comments to § 1011.9, the concept of a driver owned vehicle (DOV) has not existed in Philadelphia since 2005, and will not be recreated through these final-form regulations. In all cases, the taxicab lease will be between the owner and a taxicab driver. However, we have deleted proposed subsection (c)(9) because we believe the language to be superfluous in consideration of other sections of these regulations, including proposed subsection (b) of this section. We have reidentified paragraph (10) in the final-form regulations in response to this deletion.

Proposed § 1017.63. Wages, maximum lease amounts and uniform rates.

 Proposed § 1017.63 provides for the manner in which the Authority will investigate and establish taxicab driver wages, maximum taxicab lease amounts and the uniform taxicab rates charged to the public. IRRC correctly noted that this provision is largely duplicative of section 5720 of the act (relating to wages) and questioned the need for the majority of the section. We agree and believe that the statutory language of section 5720 adequately provides for the guidelines and process related to these issues and have deleted this section entirely from the final form regulations. We understand the concerns of taxicab drivers related to the elimination of this section; however, we note that this language has not been in place for the past 8 fiscal years. The Authority will issue orders related to these matters as provided in the act, and members of the regulated industries, including certified drivers, are authorized to petition the Authority to open investigations into these lease and uniform rate issues.

 In its Comment No. 3, IRRC inquired as to how the Authority has implemented section 5720(b) of the act in terms of setting uniform taxicab rates charged to passengers in Philadelphia, specifically in reference to how that rate relates ''to the drivers' opportunity to earn a minimum wage.'' We disagree with the premise of IRRC's question. Section 5720(a) requires medallion owners to pay drivers a minimum wage ''or, in the alternative, charge at most, a prevailing maximum lease amount to the drivers of its taxicab, as determined by the Authority upon investigation.'' Section 5720(a) does not guarantee, or even express a position, as to a minimum wage for drivers who operate taxicabs through a lease agreement as independent contractors.

 We fully recognize the constant challenges of driving a taxicab in Philadelphia. Everything from being constrained to lease and operate a vehicle that is in a worn condition, diminished profit margins caused by increasing fuel charges, the ever present threat of crime and the general difficulty of sitting in a vehicle for protracted periods of time. Driving a taxicab is simply a very hard job. That is why in 2005 we increased the uniform taxicab flag drop rate from $1.80 to $2.30 and increased the Airport flat rate from $20.00 to $25.00. That act represented the first rate increase drivers had received since the Medallion Act went into effect on January 11, 1991, nearly 14 years. The timing and the amount of the increase was subject to public comment and resulted from many meetings with the regulated industry, including driver advocacy groups. The increase was considered at a Sunshine Act meeting with no noted opposition.

 On October 20, 2005 we also granted a fuel surcharge of $.40 per metered trip and added $1.50 per trip to the Airport flat rate in response to requests from taxicab drivers, as the prices of fuel began to subside, the Board on February 28, 2008 removed the surcharge and incorporated it into a needed rate increase, effective June 2, 2008. The new approved rates were $2.70 for the flag drop and $28.50 for the Airport flat rate. A new $1.00 charge for each additional passenger after the first, excluding children, was approved. In addition, the minimum trip from the Airport was increased to $11.00. Each of these changes was implemented at an advertised Sunshine Act meeting of the Authority's Board after an investigation that involved several meetings with the regulated community. In fact, on most occasions the Authority's initial proposal was higher than the drivers' proposal. Representatives of the taxicab drivers opposed tariff increases that may result in diminished ridership. That balance between charging a fare sufficient to fairly compensate taxicab drivers and simultaneously not chase customers away is always at the forefront of the minds of both the regulated industry and the Authority when adjustments to the uniform taxicab rates are considered.

 Recently, on May 11, 2011 the Taxicab and Limousine Committee (TLC) met to hear comments on a new fuel surcharge. This meeting was in compliance with the Sunshine Act. The TLC recommended a $1.00 fuel surcharge on every trip. The Board approved it at their regular meeting held on May 26, 2011, effective May 27, 2011.

Final-form § 1017.63. Receipts.

 Final-form § 1017.63 requires taxicabs to be equipped with a receipt book for use in the event that the taxicab is unable to provide an automated meter receipt through the meter system. This provision is necessary because drivers have resorted in the past to writing ''receipts'' on blank pieces of paper or torn pieces of brown paper bags. Those receipts are not generally accepted as evidence on the expense reports of business travelers, are generally unreliable, and are not indicative of a well regulated taxicab industry. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1(2).

 Commentators questioned the need for this provision and the impact of requiring a three-part form. The three-part form requirement has been deleted. We have also deleted subsections (b) and (c). We believe that subsection (b) was duplicative of the requirements in subsection (a) and subsection (c) is no longer applicable due to the deletion of the three-part form requirement. Those deletions required the reidentification of subsection (d).

Chapter 1019. Dispatchers

§ 1019.1. Purpose and prohibition.

 Section 1019.1 provides general guidance on the purpose of Chapter 1019 and notes that a dispatcher must be certificated by the Authority. A commentator suggested that no taxicabs be required to associate with a dispatcher. Such authorization through these final-form regulations is inconsistent with section 5721 of the act. Another commentator cited this section and quoted this section, but did not provide a comment to this section.

§ 1019.2. Ineligible persons for dispatcher service.

 Section 1019.2 provides guidance on basic qualifications for those applying to the Authority for a dispatcher's certificate. IRRC questioned the value of the standard for determining the degree to which a dispatcher applicant could dispatch in the English language found in paragraph (2) of this section. We agree that the standard employed in the proposed regulation would be challenging to apply, particularly because the individuals used by a dispatcher to actually dispatch taxicabs are not tested or certificated by the Authority. Therefore, we have amended this paragraph by deleting the sufficiency language, but we have retained the obligation to dispatch in the English language. Also, paragraph (4) has been amended to note the new revised title of § 1011.7.

§ 1019.3. Dispatcher application.

 Section 1019.3 provides basic information on how a person may apply for a certificate of public convenience to be a taxicab dispatcher.

 (a). This subsection has been modified to eliminate reference to the form ''DSP-1'' because that form has been replaced by a multiuse form named ''SA-1.'' The SA-1 form has been modified for multiple purpose applications, including dispatcher applications. Replacement of the reference to form ''DSP-1'' with ''SA-1'' was also made in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. This section has also been amended to direct the filing of the application with the Manager of Administration. No direction was provided in the proposed regulation; therefore, this change should reduce any confusion in that regard.

 (b)(7). Subsection (b)(7) requires certain persons affiliated with a taxicab dispatch applicant to provide criminal background reports as part of the standard application process. The purpose of this requirement is to assure the public that persons with direct control or a strong influence over the business operations of the applicant meet the same criminal background check criteria applicable to those officially identified as the principals of the applicant. This issue applies most poignantly to non-individual applicants. The language of this section has been changed to make it consistent with other similar provisions of the regulations. The Authority believes that the criminal backgrounds of all applicants and the persons with business influence over those applicants, as provided in the regulations, should be evaluated when determining the applicants' qualification to operate a public utility that will have direct financial dealings with the public and maintain certain personal information about the public, including names, addresses, travel habits, credit card information, etc.

 Specifically, the word ''complete'' which appeared before ''criminal history report'' in this subsection has been deleted as superfluous. The term criminal history report is a defined term in the regulations, for that reason the words ''as provided in § 1001.10'' have also been deleted as superfluous. This subsection has also been amended to clarify that the criminal history report must be issued within 30 days of the application date.

 A commentator suggested that the dispatcher application seeks too much information by requesting such documents as articles of incorporation. We disagree. A thorough review of proposed providers of this public utility is crucial to providing clean, safe, reliable and well regulated taxicab service in Philadelphia. Requesting that these common and easily available documents be provided in the application process is not burdensome and in the best interests of the public. Applicants for these rights have been required to provide records of this nature to the Authority since 2005. Also, subsection (b)(8)(ii) has been amended to note the revised title of § 1011.7 and subsection (b)(12) has been deleted to remove the need to provide Philadelphia Business Privilege information.

§ 1019.4. Application changes.

 Section 1019.4 explains how and when an applicant for a dispatcher certificate must notify the Authority about a change that affects the accuracy of the information in the application while the application is under review. A commentator cited this section and quoted this section, but did not provide a comment to this section.

§ 1019.5. Facility inspection.

 Section 1019.5 provides guidelines regarding the Authority's review of dispatcher facilities and requires that the all dispatching service be provided from Philadelphia. A commentator questioned the ability of the Authority to require dispatching services be provided from Philadelphia. We believe it is important to be able to investigate the operation of certificate holders in order to assure a clean, safe, reliable and well regulated taxicab service in Philadelphia. The Authority has offices only in the City of Philadelphia; therefore, in order to efficiently regulate taxicab operations we believe it is important that the physical location of dispatchers be accessible by Authority Inspectors. However, we recognize that those services may be easily conducted in areas within the Commonwealth and on the periphery of Philadelphia, without compromising the intent of the act. Therefore, we have amended this provision to require dispatching services be conducted within Philadelphia or within 10 miles of Philadelphia in the Commonwealth. This will provide some additional flexibility to dispatchers, but not unduly interfere with the Authority's investigatory obligations under the act.

§ 1019.6. Review of dispatcher application.

 Section 1019.6 explains the circumstances under which an application for a dispatcher's certificate will be denied and under what circumstances it will be granted. A commentator generally suggested that the application process was inconsistent with the intent of the act to improve economic conditions in the Philadelphia area and to promote the creation of jobs. We disagree. The purpose of the act is to advance those objectives, and others, through the development of a clean, safe, reliable, and well regulated taxicab and limousine industry in Philadelphia. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1. We believe the review of those who seek to be involved in those industries as provided in this section and others in these final-form regulations, is entirely consistent with the intent of the act to foster that economic growth through the presence of good taxicab and limousine service in this area of the Commonwealth. Another commentator cited this section in support of his position that partial-rights taxicabs should not be required to be affiliated with a dispatcher. We incorporate our response to comments to § 1017.5.

§ 1019.7. Name, colors and markings review.

 Section 1019.17 provides for the procedure through which a dispatcher may apply for its distinctive name, colors and markings. As provided in subsection (b), the Authority will deny such an application if it determines that the proposed name, colors and markings of an applicant too closely mirror those of an existing dispatcher and deny the application.

§ 1019.8. Dispatcher requirements.

 Section 1019.8 provides basic dispatcher operation requirements.

 (6). Paragraph (6) requires that all dispatchers maintain an advertisement in a telephone book of city-wide circulation and a web site advertising their services. IRRC questioned the need and economic impact of requiring each form of advertisement. We agree with IRRC's comment and have amended the final-form regulations to require either a web site advertisement or telephone book advertisement.

 (8). A commentator questioned the requirement that a dispatcher use dispatching hardware and software compatible with approved meters systems, particularly as to partial-rights taxicabs. We incorporate our response to §§ 1017.4 and 1017.5(b)(2) regarding the application of these standards to partial-rights taxicabs.

§ 1019.9. List of affiliated taxicabs.

 Section 1019.9 requires dispatchers to file reports with the Authority identifying the current fleet of taxicabs using the dispatcher's services. It is important for the Authority to know which taxicabs are affiliated with which dispatcher at any given time in order to assist in investigations and make certain that taxicabs are actually affiliated with a dispatcher. One commentator suggested that the weekly filing of the DSP-4 form was burdensome. Because the taxicab affiliation list is generally maintained electronically by each dispatcher and the DSP-4 may be filed electronically we do not believe the filing of the dispatcher's current list will create a burden, particularly in consideration of the importance to the Authority of maintaining the most current version of this information. However, we will compromise and reduce the filing period from once a week to once a month. We believe this change will adequate address the commentator's concern, while also providing the Authority with recent data from which to monitor taxicab operations.

§ 1019.10. Dispatcher rates.

 Section 1019.10 provides for the filing of proposed dispatching rates with the Authority. Pursuant to section 5721 of the act a dispatcher must charge a reasonable fee for dispatching services. A typographical error in subsection (a) has been corrected by adding the word ''the'' directly before ''DSP-5.''

 (d). Subsection (d) provides that the Authority may deny a dispatchers proposed fee schedule if the fees are unreasonable. A commentator questioned the basis for determining that a proposed fee is unreasonable. Another commentator suggested that we set mandatory rates, which we decline to do. We have not encountered an unreasonable dispatcher fee to date, however, in the event such a denial occurs the basis will be explained in writing and the dispatcher will have the right to a hearing on the record. See § 1005.24.

§ 1019.11. Disclosure of conflicts.

 Section 1019.11 requires dispatchers to disclose internal conflicts of interests through a standardized filing with the Authority. An example of such a conflict would be when a child of a dispatcher is a taxicab driver operating through affiliation with the parent's dispatch system. Other taxicab certificate holders may then assess that conflict and any potential preferential treatment that the child taxicab driver may receive in terms of preferred taxicab work when deciding to affiliate with the dispatcher. A commentator suggested that dispatchers also disclose non-taxicab related dispatching services. We decline to create such a requirement because absent a violation of the act or the Authority's regulations, such additional dispatching work is irrelevant to our regulation of the taxicab industry.

§ 1019.12. Bond required.

 Section 1019.12 provides for certain bonding requirements applicable to taxicab dispatchers. Given the level of financial information and funds that will be handled by dispatchers, the Authority believes that these agents must maintain a bond at levels that adequately assure the public of the ability to recover against dispatchers in appropriate situations, such matters involving fraud or negligence by error or omission. This section has been amended to the elimination of form DSP-1 in place of the multiuse Form SA-1. Subsection (b) has also been amended to refer to the proper subsection of § 1003.51. The reference should have been to subsection ''(f) .'' The SA-1 form has been modified for multiple purpose applications, including dispatcher applications. In the event the bond of a dispatcher was not accepted by the Authority the basis for the denial will be explained in writing and the dispatcher will have the right to a hearing on the record. See § 1005.24. Subsection (c) has been amended to provide for the current level of bonding required under the Authority's current regulations, being $10,000 as opposed to the $50,000 required in the proposed regulations, again, to maintain the regulator status quo in Philadelphia.

Proposed § 1019.13. Maximum number of dispatcher certificates.

 Section 1019.13 of the proposed regulation provided that the number of dispatcher certificates in Philadelphia may not exceed 12. A commentator suggested that this limitation will not encourage economic growth in Philadelphia, we disagree. There are a finite number of taxicabs in Philadelphia. While we believe that taxicab certificate holders should have a choice of dispatchers to encourage competition, we also believe that the public should not have to call several dispatchers to find one with an available taxicab. While this certainly may already happen at times of high demand, such as when it rains during rush hour, it should not be a regular occurrence.

 We do not believe that an unlimited number of dispatchers, all with different names, colors and markings and ever decreasing numbers of affiliated taxicabs will result in an improvement to the reliability of taxicab service. A dispatcher must have enough affiliated taxicabs to answer public demand; the more dispatchers that exist in a market, the fewer taxicabs each dispatcher will be able to call upon to answer advanced reservation work. However, we have also eliminated this dispatcher cap and reserved this section. The reason for implementing a cap remains valid; however, we will consider the issue in a more narrowly tailored rulemaking after advanced notice to the public and regulated parties.

 A commentator also noted that the inability of a partial-rights taxicab certificate holder to dispatch its own taxicabs as currently permitted, will cause undue harm to those service providers. We disagree with the idea that requiring partial-rights taxicabs to affiliate with certified dispatchers will cause economic harm to partial-rights taxicab certificate holders. Instead, we believe that such affiliations with larger dispatch operations will serve to widen the use of those taxicabs, within the limits of the act and the Authority's regulations. However, we have again compromised in the final-form regulations by requiring only medallion taxicabs are required to affiliate with certified dispatchers, partial-rights taxicab certificate holders may request an exemption. See § 1017.5(b)(2). A requirement that partial-rights taxicabs be dispatched through certified dispatchers may be advanced in a future rulemaking after input from the industries and the public.

Final-form § 1019.13. Minimum number of taxicab affiliations.

 Final-form § 1019.13 requires all dispatchers to maintain an affiliation with at least 20 active taxicabs. In the final-form regulation the 20 taxicab requirement has been amended to require affiliation with at least 20 medallion taxicabs. The name of the section has been amended to reflect that change. A commentator suggested that there should be no minimum number of taxicab affiliations. We disagree with this position for the same reason that we believe that an unlimited number dispatchers will cause harm to the industry. While we have lifted the dispatcher cap for now (there is no current cap in place in Philadelphia), we continue to believe that the dispatchers that do exist must have a sufficient number of taxicabs to respond to calls for service throughout Philadelphia and that this low threshold number of 20 is reasonable. There are currently 12 dispatchers in Philadelphia for 1,600 medallion taxicabs, not including partial-rights taxicabs. That averages out to 133 taxicabs per dispatcher, if a dispatcher cannot maintain a fleet of 20 or more taxicabs it may be an indication that the dispatcher is providing poor service, and it will likely lead to an inability to service the riding public when they attempt to arrange for taxicab service, which is contrary to the legislative intent of the act. We incorporate our response to proposed § 1019.13 above.

Final-form § 1019.14. Dispatcher records.

 Final-form § 1019.14 describes what types of records must be maintained by dispatchers. A commentator listed this section along with a series of other sections without providing a direct comment. We incorporate our response to comments to § 1011.11.

Chapter 1021. Taxicab drivers

§ 1021.1. Purpose and scope.

 Section 1021.1 provides that the purpose of Chapter 1021 is to provide minimum standards for taxicab drivers and permits certificate holders to impose higher standards for their driver's performance. A commentator suggested that the imposition of higher standards by a certificate holder may be interpreted as an element of an employer-employee relationship and that certificate holders seek to avoid that interpretation. This regulation does not require certificate holders to impose higher taxicab driver standards, nor does it relate to employee versus independent contractor drivers.

§ 1021.2. Certification required.

 Section 1021.2 explains that only a taxicab driver is authorized to provide taxicab service. The section also describes where a taxicab driver's certificate must be placed, the condition a taxicab driver's certificate must be in, and how many taxicab driver's certificates may be displayed in a cab at one time. Finally, the section states that taxicab driver's certificates are not transferable.

§ 1021.3. Maximum number of taxicab driver's certificates.

 Section 1021.3 of the proposed regulation established a maximum number of taxicab drivers and provided for the designation of current driver's certificates for either taxicab or limousine use. For the reasons provided below, the title of this section has been amended to ''Designation of taxicab driver's certificate.''

 IRRC questioned the statutory basis of the Authority's limitation of the taxicab driver's certificates and noted that this limitation was among the most controversial provision of the proposed regulations. Representative Mark B. Cohen also expressed opposition to this provision, while the United Taxi Workers Alliance expressed support for the Authority's position. Other commentators questioned the legality and overall propriety of this limitation. We believe that section 5706 of the act permits the Authority to impose limitations of this nature for drivers of taxicabs within Philadelphia. We also believe a limitation of this nature is necessary in order to stem the abuse of taxicab drivers by unscrupulous certificate holders who will simply seek the next driver in line upon receipt of a reasonable complaint from a driver associated with the condition of a taxicab or other service related issues. However, we recognize the importance of establishing the appropriate number for the taxicab driver cap and that this provision would constitute a deviation from the regulatory status quo in Philadelphia.

 Therefore, we have deleted this cap entirely from the final-form regulations and intend on initiating public comment and further review related to this issue in the future. The elimination of the driver cap has necessitated the deletion of subsections (a) and (b) of the proposed regulation and required the reidentification of the subsequent subsections with certain deletions within those subsections of references to the previous subsection (a).

 We have also added a paragraph (3) to the amended subsection (a) to clarify that new driver certificates will distinguish between taxicab and limousine drivers. The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee commented that this distinction exceeds the Authority's statutory mandate. The preceding subsections relate primarily to the effect of these regulations upon certificated drivers as of the time the final-form regulations become effective. Since 2005 we have received many complaints from certificate holders, particularly limousine certificate holders that the ''one size fits all'' approach to driver certification was costly and wasteful and in some cases counter-productive given the different types of service provided by these carriers, we agree with those comments.

 Section 5706(a) of the act provides the Authority with broad discretion in the development of a driver's certification program, in which it concludes as follows: ''The authority may establish orders or regulations which designate additional requirements governing the certification of drivers and the operation of taxicabs or limousines by drivers, including, but not limited to, dress codes for drivers.'' (emphasis added). Commentators who questioned the necessity of this division miss the fact that there are many differences in the type of service provided by taxicabs and limousines and we believe the intent of section 5706(a) was to permit the Authority the discretion necessary to implement deviating standards between taxicab and limousine drivers if necessary to achieve our legislative mandate of providing a clean, safe, reliable, and well regulated taxicab and limousine industry in Philadelphia. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1(2). We believe these distinguished and more narrowly tailored training requirements provided in the final-form regulations are a necessity to achieve our obligations under the act and will improve the quality of both taxicab and limousine service in Philadelphia and are consistent with the requests and comments of may regulated parties submitted to the Authority over the years.

§ 1021.4. Ineligible persons for taxicab driver certificate.

 Section 1021.4 provides criteria that will render individuals ineligible to be taxicab drivers. IRRC noted the comment of another commentator in regard to the requirement of paragraph (6) that each taxicab driver applicant must have a driving history in the United States of at least 1 year prior to the date of the application. IRRC questioned the need for this requirement. The Authority has an obligation to make sure that taxicabs are operated in as safe a manner as possible. A driving record provides guidance on an applicant's experience operating a motor vehicle, the longer the record the more evidence that the applicant knows how to drive and actually does drive safely.

 IRRC noted that an applicant may have a long driving record from Canada that could be considered in the taxicab driver application process.

 We agree with IRRC's comment. We recognize that some driving records from outside the United States may be accessible by the Authority and reasonably relied upon. However, taxicab driver applicants come from all over the world and we do not believe that a one-size-fits-all alteration to this section is possible in consideration of the varying laws, record keeping and other conditions in those countries. Therefore, we have amended paragraph (6) in the final-form regulations to permit the Authority to consider driving records from other countries in the application process if the applicant has been in the United States for less than 5 years.

§ 1021.5. Standards for obtaining a taxicab driver's certificate.

 Section 1021.5 provides for the taxicab driver application process and identifies information that the applicant must present along with the application in order to be considered, such as a driver's license, driver history report, etc. Subsection (a) has been corrected by deleting reference to § 1021.3 and the limitation of the aggregate number of taxicab drivers provided in that section of the proposed regulations.

 (b)(2). Subsection (b)(2) requires taxicab driver applicants to submit certain contact information. Comments from the United Taxi Workers Alliance (the ''Alliance'') suggested that this section should require drivers to submit an email address. We will decline this suggestion and in doing so note that the Alliance strenuously objected to this exact requirement when the Authority's local Taxicab and Limousine Regulations were in the proposed stage in 2005. The Alliance's position had been that many taxicab drivers do not own computers and do not have access to email accounts. We see no reason to deviate from the established process and hold taxicab drivers responsible for checking email accounts that they do not have. However, the language in the final-form regulations will permit drivers to voluntarily participate in the email notification process.

 (b)(6). Subsection (b)(6) requires taxicab driver applicants to submit a criminal history report from each jurisdiction in which the applicant has resided during the 5 years preceding the date of the application. We have corrected a discrepancy noted by IRRC in subsection (b)(6). In the second sentence of that subsection the term ''criminal history record'' is used, while the final-form regulations instead define the term ''criminal history report.'' We have corrected that discrepancy in the final-form regulations.

 IRRC, and other commentators, questioned the impact of the 5 year look back period in this subsection, as well as subsection (b)(8) relating to driving history reports, on immigrants who have not lived in the United States for 5 years. To address this concern we have amended subsections (b)(6) and (8) to clarify that such individuals will meet the applicable requirements by consenting to the release of the required reports by the governments of other countries, and in the case of criminal history reports, Interpol or records of the United States government relating to the individual's immigration.

 IRRC also questioned the need to check the criminal history of persons who have immigrated legally to this country. A person may have legally entered the United States several years before applying to be a taxicab driver and committed crimes in the interim. The standards that the Homeland Security Department uses to determine the eligibility of an immigrant who has a criminal history from another country to enter the United States may be different than the standards the Authority will apply in determining if an individual should be permitted to provide taxicab service. Also, even if the standards used by Homeland Security today were at least as stringent, a simple policy change in that department would directly and unknowingly impact the Authority and taxicab service in Philadelphia. We believe a review of an applicant's criminal history is very close to the minimum level of scrutiny that the public should expect from an agency charged with screening and regulating taxicab drivers, we see no reason to exempt immigrants from that review.

 (b)(10). Subsection (b)(10) requires disclosure of other ownership interests in Authority or PUC certificates. IRRC questioned the meaning of ''or other rights.'' That term has been deleted in the final-form regulations.

 (b)(11). Subsection (b)(11) requires a taxicab driver applicant to submit a writing affirming that several facts are true, such as the confirmation that the applicant has not been subject to a criminal conviction. Subsection (b)(11)(ii) has been amended to note the revised title of § 1011.7. IRRC commented that the reference to ''reports'' in subsection (b)(11)(iii) was vague. We agree and have deleted that subparagraph from final-form regulation. The deletion required the reidentification of the subsequent subparagraph.

§ 1021.6. Application changes.

 Section 1021.6 explains how and when an applicant for a taxicab driver's certificate must notify the Authority about a change that affects the accuracy of the information in the application while the application is under review. This section also details the consequences that an applicant will face for providing false information.

§ 1021.7. Taxicab driver training scheduled.

 Section 1021.7 provides that upon submission of a taxicab driver's application the applicant will be immediately scheduled for training by the Authority, unless the application documents evidence that the applicant is clearly ineligible. For example, an applicant who does not possess a valid driver's license will not be scheduled for training. A commentator suggested that this general training requirement will delay an applicant's initiation of taxicab service. We agree that the applicant will not be able to provide taxicab service until after he or she is trained, tested, and has completed the application process, but fail to see how any undue delay will occur. The reason the applicant will be immediately scheduled for training is to avoid such a delay. A typographical error in subsection (b) was corrected by deleting the term ''illegible'' and inserting the word ''ineligible.''

§ 1021.8. Certain training subjects.

 Section 1021.8 identifies several subjects that will be part of the taxicab driver's certification test. The United Taxicab Workers Alliance suggested that the test be expanded to include such things as the ability to operate a motor vehicle and a drug test. We note that § 1021.9(c)(4) already permits the Authority to test an applicant's ability to operate a motor vehicle. We agree that a procedure related to testing for alcohol and controlled substances would be wise; however, it is a controversial issue that was not addressed in the proposed regulations. We will consider adding such a requirement through a subsequent rulemaking. A commentator suggested that the training of taxicab drivers should not be geared entirely toward medallion drivers and such a focus may place drivers of partial-rights taxicabs in danger of violating territorial restrictions. Although the Authority's training has made this distinction since 2005, we understand the commentator's concern and have amended this section to specify that training taxicab driver training will addresses the differences that exist between partial-rights taxicab and medallion taxicab services, although most driver training will apply regardless of which type of service the driver provides. Again, this will not be a new practice in Philadelphia.

 The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee commented in regard to driver issues that the Authority should consider including a provision in the regulations requiring the development of a handbook for the use of industry members. We currently employ this practice as to our current regulations and will continue to use guidance documents to assist regulated persons in the process of understanding the requirements of the regulations and the act. Indeed, this need for understanding, not only of requirements but also rights, is one of the reasons that the regulations require many regulated persons to submit to training by the Authority, including taxicab drivers.

§ 1021.9. Taxicab driver test.

 Section 1021.9 provides for the creation of a taxicab driver test by the Authority and certain components that may be a part of that test. IRRC questioned the meaning of subsection (c)(5) in terms of the requirement that an applicant ''demonstrate'' an ability to read and write the English language. We have deleted paragraph (5) in order to avoid the lack of clarity that concerned IRRC. We have amended subsection (a) to clarify that answers to test questions must be in the English language. We believe the applicant's ability to successfully complete the driver test will provide a clear and objectively measurable demonstration of an ability to adequately communicate with the public in English. A typographical error in subsection (f) was corrected by deleting ''registration'' and inserting ''a driver's certificate'' in order to be consistent with the balance of the chapter.

§ 1021.10. Expiration and renewal of certificate.

 Section 1021.10 provides for the annual expiration of a taxicab driver's certificate and other requirements related to annual renewal.

 (a). Subsection provides for the annual expiration of a taxicab driver's certificate. IRRC commented that subsection (a) is redundant with § 1011.3(a)(2). We agree and have deleted this subsection from the final form.

 (b). Subsection (b) provides that a taxicab driver in good standing need not submit to a new taxicab driver test at the time of annual renewal. IRRC suggested that this subsection be relocated to § 1011.3 which deals squarely with annual renewal issues. We have deleted this subsection in its entirety because there is no section of the regulations that requires retraining or retesting simply because a taxicab driver is required to renew a driver's certificate; therefore, language exempting a taxicab driver from such a requirement is unnecessary and has been deleted in the final-form regulations.

 (c). Subsection (c) of the proposed regulation provided that a suspended driver must submit to the annual renewal process on time despite the suspension and that a suspended driver will have to submit to retraining and testing in order to renew taxicab service if so ordered in the suspension order. IRRC suggested that this subsection be relocated to § 1011.3 which deals squarely with annual renewal issues. We agree that § 1011.3(e) already requires rights to be renewed despite a suspended status; therefore that language of this subsection has been deleted as redundant in the final-form regulations. The balance of the subsection is unnecessary because the suspension order will control the obligation to resubmit to training and testing; therefore, that language will also be deleted.

 (d). Subsection (d) of the proposed regulation provided that a driver's certificate could be denied renewal if the driver is out of compliance with a specific section of the regulations. We agree that § 1011.3(d)(2) already provides that rights may be denied at the time of renewal if that process reveals information about the renewing person that would have resulted in a denial of an initial application. Therefore, this subsection has been deleted from this section. Because every section preceding subsection (e) has been deleted and there are no subsequent subsections, this section no longer requires subsections.

§ 1021.11. Driver requirements.

 Subsection 1021.11 provides specific requirements applicable to drivers when providing taxicab service. A typographical error was corrected in subsection (b)(11) by properly spelling the word ''Manager.''

 Commentators suggested that the public should not be able to pay for taxicab service through the use of a credit card and questioned the process through which credit cards are accepted. We disagree with those comments and incorporate our response to comments to §§ 1017.24 here.

 (c). Permitted fares. Subsection (c) provides that a taxicab driver must charge the rates approved by the Authority. This subsection has been amended to reflect the deletion of proposed § 1017.63 and replaces that reference with section 5720 of the act, which empowers the Authority to establish those rates by order.

 (d)(1). Gratuities or payment method. Subsection (d)(1) of the proposed regulations prohibited a taxicab driver from insisting upon a gratuity for providing taxicab service. We have replaced ''insist upon'' with ''request'' to clarify that taxicab drivers may not seek gratuities. They may certainly accept one if offered by the passenger without prompting.

 The term ''insist'' creates a presumption that demands for a gratuity are acceptable, provided they do not cross an unspecified line, which would have caused confusion. We note that the medallion taxicab meter system prompts passengers to select a certain tip amount, or no tip, when fare payments are paid by credit cards. However, actual communications from the driver will make many passengers uncomfortable and may lead to a form of de facto rate increase if unscrupulous drivers resort to requests for gratuities.

§ 1021.12. Additional requirements.

 Section 1021.12 provides several requirements applicable to drivers while providing taxicab service.

 (b). Subsection (b) of the proposed regulations required taxicab drivers to be in operation for certain periods of time. This language was important when used in connection with the former 3,000 taxicab driver limit provided in the proposed regulation of § 1021.3; however, that maximum aggregate number of taxicab drivers has been deleted in the final-form regulations negating the need for this language, which has also been deleted in the final-form regulations.

 IRRC, and other commentators, questioned why the current maximum number of hours a taxicab driver may be in service was not continued in these regulations. We agree with IRRC and the commentator, that the failure to include that important public safety requirement was an oversight that has been corrected in this section of the final-form regulations. The maximum number of hours a taxicab driver may provide taxicab service will remain at 14 hours from the beginning of a shift, regardless of breaks that may be taken during that period. Only 8 hours off duty will permit a taxicab driver to operate for another 14 hour period.

 Most taxicab drivers do operate for periods very close to the current maximum 14 hour period. We have limited the number of hours that a taxicab driver may provide taxicab service since 2005 because exhaustion and sleep deprivation lead to poor driving decisions and vehicular accidents. We believe that the 14 hour maximum shift should be retained in Philadelphia and that the requirement to remain out of service for eight consecutive hours will permit drivers time to adequately rest before reinitiating taxicab service. We believe this section also leaves enough elasticity to permit part-time taxicab drivers to safely provide service in segments during each 14 hour maximum driving period.

 (e). Subsection (e) of the proposed regulation provided guidance to taxicab drivers related to the provision of non-exclusive taxicab service. However, as detailed above in response to changes made to § 1011.19, taxicab service in Philadelphia is provided on only an exclusive basis, barring a specific order from the Authority otherwise. Therefore, reference to non-exclusive service has been deleted.

 (f). Subsection (f) clarifies that the intent of this section or these regulations are not interfere with interstate commerce. This subsection was amended to remove reference to a specific federal statute because the subject of this language goes beyond that single statute.

§ 1021.13. Taxicab driver's certificate upon cancellation.

 Section 1021.13 provides for status of a taxicab driver's certificate upon cancellation and specifically notes that once cancelled a driver's certificate may not be reinstated. A formerly certificated individual would have to reapply for a driver's certificate in such cases.

§ 1021.14. General taxicab driver reports

 Section 1021.14 provides that a taxicab driver must make timely reports to the Authority as required by the act and these regulations and specifies subjects for reporting, including the current status of the individual's state issued driver's license in the event it becomes invalid.

§ 1021.15. Taxicab driver reports after accident.

 Section 1021.15 provides for certain driver requirements in the event a taxicab driver is involved in an accident while providing taxicab service. We have deleted paragraphs (2) and (3) in the final-form regulation in consideration of IRRC comments in regard to the confusion that may be created by the requirement to take necessary precautions to prevent further accidents at the scene and to render reasonable assistance to injured persons. Paragraph (5) has been reidentified as (3) in consideration of those deletions.

§ 1021.16. Service issues regarding people with disabilities.

 Section 1021.16 provides that a taxicab that is in service and not otherwise engaged in providing service to another individual must stop when hailed by a disabled person. A commentator suggested this language could be confusing to partial-rights taxicab drivers who are not authorized to accept street hails in many areas of Philadelphia. We agree and have changed the language of the proposed regulation to be identified as subsection (a) and we have added a new subsection (b) to clarify that a taxicab will not be in violation of this section for failing to stop in an area where the driver may not accept a street hail.

§ 1021.17. Partial-rights taxicab driver log.

 Section 1021.17 requires partial-rights taxicab drivers to maintain a service log and provides for certain requirements of that log.

 (b)(11). Subsection (b)(11) of the proposed regulations was a catch-all provision related to the content of a partial-rights taxicab service log. IRRC questioned the meaning of subsection (b)(11) which requires unspecified information ''as may be required by this subpart.'' We agree with IRRC's concern and have deleted that language in the final-form regulation.

 (f). Subsection (f) provides that the Authority may require the use of a specific form of partial-rights taxicab service log, the term ''trip sheet'' was used in the proposed regulation; however, that term has been substituted with the term ''taxicab service log'' to be consistent with the rest of this section, although there is no substantive difference between the terms. IRRC questioned the need for a form service log given the specificity of this section as to content of a service log. While we have attempted to be specific about the content of these service logs, we reserve the right to require a specific form in the event we determine that the service logs used are unsatisfactory. For example, if the forms used are too small to permit easy reading or too big to permit easy filing or include information or data that makes the service log confusing to use or read. The mere requirement to include certain data may be insufficient to produce a legible and usable service log. A commentator noted that a partial-rights taxicab driver may have to log trips regulated by both the PUC and the Authority. We agree and note that this is not a change from the status quo in Philadelphia or anywhere else in the Commonwealth. The PUC also requires a trip sheet or service log for the taxicab service these partial-rights taxicabs provide in PUC areas, through a regulation very similar to the requirement of this section. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.313(c) (relating to service standards and requirements). There is no prohibition in these regulations from logging all trips (those regulated by the PUC and the PPA) on one service log, so long as all trips regulated by the Authority are noted.

Chapter 1023. Taxicab rates

§ 1023.1. Uniform taxicab rate.

 Section 1023.1 provides that taxicab service within Philadelphia will be provided pursuant to a single rate structure that will be changed after investigation. A commentator suggested that all participants in the taxicab industry be provided an opportunity to participate in such an investigation. We agree and note that this is already the practice in Philadelphia and has been since 2005. Any process that gives rise to a rate change will continue to involve an investigation and a Sunshine Act meeting of the Authority's Board. We understand and agree that the industry and the interested members of the public must be centrally involved in this process.

 We have deleted Chapter 23 because we believe it is unnecessary and may be read to conflict with certain authorizations and procedures clearly provided for in the act related taxicab rates in Philadelphia. See e.g. 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703, 5720 and 5714(c).

§ 1023.2. Taxicab fare refunds.

 Section 1023.2 provides that a taxicab driver found to have charged a passenger a rate higher than that required by the Authority may be directed to refund that overcharge to the customer. We incorporate our response provided in § 1023.1.

§ 1023.3. Rates for parcels, packages and property.

 Section 1023.3 provided for procedures related to the delivery of parcels or other items through taxicab service. A commentator suggested drivers be compensated for periods of time waiting for signatures upon delivery; however, we note that this issue may be addressed more specifically in an Authority order authorizing such service as provided in sections 5703 or 5720 of the act. Therefore, this section has been deleted from the final-form regulation along. We incorporate our response provided in § 1023.1.

Chapter 1025. Insurance required

§ 1025.1. Definitions.

 Section 1025.1 provides general definitions related to this insurance chapter.

§ 1025.2. Insurance forms and procedures.

 Section 1025.2 provides for certain forms, content and procedures related to taxicab insurance issues, particularly the certification that proper insurance is in place and notification of any cancelation of insurance. IRRC referenced subsection (c)(2) and noted that the language of that section was vague and left potential for changes outside of the rulemaking process. We have deleted paragraph (2) and former paragraph (3) has been reidentified as paragraph (2). We have amended subsection (h) by removing the mandatory out of service designation for failing to submit to maintain insurance. Instead, the discretion to initiate that process will be with the Enforcement Department.

§ 1025.3. Insurance required.

 Section 1025.3 provides the level of automobile insurance that taxicab certificate holders must maintain in order to provide taxicab service.

 (b). Subsection (b) provides specific guidelines related to the level of insurance benefits that taxicab certificate holders must maintain. IRRC noted the comments of many commentators in relation to the proposed increase to the status quo insurance requirements for taxicabs in Philadelphia, which is currently equal to the minimum coverage required for any passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth. Representative Mark B. Cohen commented that the proposed insurance changes would negatively affect the economic vitality of taxicabs. The Democratic Chairperson of the House Urban Affairs Committee requested further explanation of the fiscal impact of the increased financial responsibility requirements of the proposed regulation. A taxicab driver commented that insurance levels should be increased to cover driver medical costs or that a special medical payment fund be established by the Authority. The introduction of new insurance requirements would be inconsistent with the Authority's intent to promulgate regulations that maintain the status quo in Philadelphia and the creation of a special medical care fund is not authorized in the act.

 We recognize that the proposed increases in insurance levels will require a more detailed review of industry conditions and public needs than this large rulemaking will afford. We are concerned about the availability of insurance for taxicabs in Philadelphia and understand the concern that the current insurers may not wish to remain involved in the Philadelphia market if the levels of insurance originally proposed become final.

 Therefore, the final-form regulations return the required insurance levels to their status quo levels. However, we will issue a request for public comment and investigate the need for an increase in these levels of insurance in the future. That investigation will involve a review of insurer capability, costs and the potential for bringing more insurers to this market.

 (c). Subsection (c) provides for the release of a certificate holder's insurance loss runs to the Authority. A commentator suggested that it is not possible to release loss runs within 2 days as required by this subsection and raises questions of the confidentiality of the content of the loss runs. The Authority will not require an insurer to release the loss runs of an insured without the insured's consent, which is clearly provided for in this section. In the Authority's experience insurers have no difficulty producing loss runs within 2 days of a request; however, we will compromise and grant an additional day for the production of that information. The need to produce these records promptly relates directly to the ability of the Authority to certificate the insurer's client in as expeditious a manner as possible; therefore, we believe the timeline for production benefits all parties.

§ 1025.4. Applications to self-insure.

 Section 1025.4 provides guidelines for certificate holders to apply for authorization from the Authority to act in a self-insured capacity pursuant to the act.

§ 1025.5. Standards for adjustment and payment of claims.

 Section 1025.5 provides for the adjustment procedures to be used by taxicab certificate holders in the event they qualify to act in a self-insured capacity. Commentators, including IRRC, questioned the meaning of the phrase ''fair claims settlement and compromise practices'' in this section and requested a citation for guidance. We have deleted this language in the final-form regulation; however, the list of prohibited conduct provided in the proposed regulation will remain to provide guidance related to the adjustment of these claims.

§ 1025.6. Additional requirements.

 Section 1025.6 provides for disclosures by insurers to their insureds, specifically as to any deviation from standard ISO requirements in a policy.

Chapter 1027. Sale of rights

§ 1027.1. Purpose.

 Section 1027.1 provides for the general purpose of Chapter 1027.

§ 1027.2. Definitions.

 Section 1027.2 provides definitions applicable primarily to the sale of transferable rights. IRRC commented that each subpart of the final rulemaking should contain a definition section identifying terms used in that subpart and that the terms should be consistent throughout the rulemaking. We agree with IRRC, although this adjustment has required a significant amount of editing. We have attempted to reduce, as much as practical, the use of definitional language outside of the definition sections. Section 1027.2 is a section that the Authority believes can be eliminated as a definition section. Terms defined in this section will be moved as provided below:

 • ''Medallion taxicab certificate'' has been moved to § 1011.2.

 • ''Partial-rights taxicab certificate'' has been moved to § 1011.2.

 • ''Sale'' has been moved to § 1001.10.

 • ''Transfer fee'' as worded in this section has been moved to §§ 1011.2 and 1051.2 and will replace the definition of that term used in the proposed regulation.

 Section 1027.2 has been re-titled ''Transferable rights'' and will now simply outline those rights issued by the Authority that may be subject to sale. For consistency purposes and because the term sale is defined, the first sentence of this section will list the rights subject to ''sale'' as opposed to the use of the term ''transferable.'' For example, a driver's certificate or broker's registration is not eligible for sale. Subparagraph (iv) has been reworded to clarify that a certificate of public convenience to provide limousine service is subject to sale.

 IRRC's comment regarding the placement of ''medallion taxicab certificate'' has been addressed through the removal of that term, along with the term ''partial-rights certificate,'' from this section and placement of those terms in § 1011.2.

 A commentator questioned why transfer fees are nonrefundable. These fees are nonrefundable because the Authority's staff is required to perform a significant amount of work in order to perform its statutory transfer review duties. The transfer fee is charged in order to defer some of the costs associated with that review. Those costs accrue to the Authority regardless of the decision or ability of the regulated parties to complete the transaction. Regulated parties should carefully review the act and the Authority's regulations and their ability to meet basic requirements in advance of participating in an application to buy or sell rights.

§ 1027.3. Authority approval of sale of rights.

 Section 1027.3 provides that the sale of rights must be approved by the Authority in advance.

 (b). Sale of securities in transferable rights. Subsection (b) of the proposed regulation provided that the sale of securities in an entity with an ownership interest in a transferable right is a sale that is subject to the approval of the Authority.

 IRRC and other commentators commented that this provision may create an undue burden upon certain regulated persons by impeding upon the free transfer of stock. There are few holders of certificates of public convenience or medallion owners registered as individuals. Nearly every certificate holder has created a small corporation to own the relevant transferable right, and thereby insulate the individual owner(s) from liability and other unwanted burdens of direct personal ownership. Several individuals have created multiple small corporations, or other types of entities, to hold various transferable rights. Certificate holders can sell transferable rights merely through the sale of securities, without a change to the name of the owning corporation or other entity. Our experience has been that nearly all of the securities transfers in the taxicab and limousine industry result in the transfer of large percentages of the issued securities for these entities. The sale of the securities is, in reality, the sale of the rights issued by the Authority. In the past, some regulated parties and persons seeking to become involved in the taxicab and limousine industry have attempted to simply ''sell the business'' along with the Authority rights without seeking the Authority's approval of the sale and the qualifications of the new owner(s). This process is clearly inconsistent with provisions of the act that require the Authority to review these changes in ownership.

 In order to meet our statutory burden to review all medallion and certificate of public convenience sales, our regulations must have provisions related to the sale of securities in an entity that owns those rights. See 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 5711(c)(5), 5718(a) and 5741.1(c)(3). The Authority cannot permit individuals who are otherwise prohibited from participating in the taxicab and limousine industries from doing so behind the veil of a corporation through the accumulation of securities.

 However, we understand that requiring the approval from the Authority for the sale of a de minimis number of securities may pose a burden upon some regulated parties. Therefore, we have accepted IRRC's recommendation to establish a threshold by amending this section of the final-form regulations to exempt the sale of securities equaling less than 2% of the issued securities of the subject. A sale that will result in the accumulation of 2% or more of such securities by a person will require approval by the Authority, regardless of the number of securities currently suggested for sale. While the potential burden referenced in the comments has not materialized in Philadelphia from 2005 through the date of this comment, we believe this compromise will alleviate the potential for such a burden, while adequately protecting the public's interest in knowing that the owner of transferable rights is both capable of providing the required service and not otherwise prohibited from doing so. A commentator questioned the difference in the definition of a ''sale'' with the transfer authorization granted in subsection (b). The sale of this de minimis number of securities in an entity that owns a transferable right is a special subset of a sale governed by this section. The limitations of the individual sale combined with the limitation of the buyer's aggregate ownership interests will both permit the flexibility IRRC and commentators requested and prevent control of rights by persons not subject to review.

 In response to IRRC's comments we have deleted the phrase ''or other ownership interests'' from this section of the final-form regulations because we believe that it is unnecessarily expansive and that the balance of the language of this section squarely addresses the type of ownership transfers at issue.

§ 1027.4. Certificate required for medallion sales.

 Section 1027.4 provides that the buyer of a medallion must be a medallion taxicab certificate holder in order to take possession of the medallion through a sale.

§ 1027.5. Agreement of sale.

 Section 1027.5 requires the parties to an agreement of sale relating to transferable rights to execute the agreement in the presence of an Authority representative. This is a continuation of the existing practice in Philadelphia dating to 2005. The parties to agreements of sale execute the agreements at TLD Headquarters at appointed times, which decreases delays associated with the execution of documents.

 A representative for a medallion owner commented that this requirement was unnecessary. However, we believe it is required by section 5718(a) of the act. This practice alleviates justifiable concerns related to forged agreements of sale and fraudulent conveyances of rights and will not create a new obligation on the part of regulated parties.

§ 1027.6. Application for sale of transferable rights.

 Section 1027.6 identifies the form application necessary to initiate the sale of transferable rights and provides for the manner in which it must be filed. A commentator suggested that the application process would require less copying if it were completed electronically. We agree and will review ways to permit this type of filing in the future as budgetary constraints allow; however, the process will remain the same under these final-form regulations as it has been since 2005 until an alternative method is developed. In the meantime, and in the form of a compromise, we have amended subsection (a) to require only one copy of the application.

 (d). Multiple rights. Subsection (d) provides that a single sale application may be used to transfer multiple transferable rights and that the transfer fee charged by the Authority will be based on the higher of the aggregate value of the rights transferred or the transfer fee for each right. IRRC questioned the basis for developing this method of calculating. This section does not establish a transfer fee. The transfer fee is set each year as provided in section 5707(b) of the act. We have deleted reference to this calculation from the final-form regulations and believe it is more appropriately addressed in the Authority's annual budget and fee schedule process.

§ 1027.7. Required application information.

 Section 1027.7 provides certain guidelines related to the process through which a person may apply to the Authority to obtain or sell rights and specific documents that must accompany the application. Including all the documents with the application will permit a more efficient review of the application.

 (b). Required information. Subsection (b) identifies specific documents that must be submitted with the sale application.

 (4). Paragraph (4) requires a non-individual applicant to file a copy of the certificate of good standing issued by the Corporate Bureau. A commentator suggested that this process is unnecessary and will delay the review of applications. We agree that this requirement will be unnecessary for entities that already own a certificate of public convenience and have amended this paragraph to reflect that position in the final-form regulations. We disagree that the status of a non-individual proposed buyer of transferable rights is not relevant to determining an entity's fitness to operate a public utility. The certificate of good standing is easily obtained from the Corporate Bureau. Including that document at the time of filing will permit a thorough and efficient review of the application.

 (12). Paragraph (12) requires certain persons affiliated with an applicant to provide criminal background reports as part of the standard application process. The purpose of this requirement is to assure the public that persons with direct control or a strong influence over the business operations of the applicant meet the same criminal background check criteria applicable to those officially identified as the principals of the applicant. This issue applies most poignantly to non-individual applicants. The Authority believes that the criminal backgrounds of all applicants and the persons with business influence over those applicants, as provided in the regulations, should be evaluated when determining the applicant's qualification to operate a public utility that will have direct financial dealings with the public and maintain certain personal information about the public, including names, addresses, travel habits, credit card information, etc. The act prohibits approval of a sale of application related to medallions or certificates of public convenience if the proposed owner has been convicted of a felony within the preceding 5 years. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5718(c).

 Specifically, this subsection has been amended to clarify that the criminal history report must be issued within 30 days of the application date and to delete a superfluous reference to ''part-time'' residences. The term ''residence'' incorporates both full and part-time usage.

 (14). Paragraph (14) requires a verified statement from the owner of proposed buyer of the transferable rights that each are in compliance with the terms of section 1011.7, which deals with current payments or fees, penalties, etc. This subsection has been amended simply to note the revised title of § 1011.7.

 (16). Paragraph (16) of the proposed regulation required the applicant for transferable rights to provide a Philadelphia Business Privilege License number. Because the possession of such a license is not currently required for taxicab certificate holders, this paragraph has been deleted.

§ 1027.8. Additional application requirements.

 Section 1027.8 provides for several requirements regarding the content of agreements of sale for transferable rights, the manner in which the agreements may be executed, the continued operation of the rights subject to sale and submission of certain loan documents for review.

 A commentator questioned the need to publish notice of each sale application in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and asserted that this notice publication would delay the review period. We believe that publication of the sale application will benefit the public and the regulated parties in a variety of ways, including advanced knowledge of the parties to each sale, which may generate submission of additional information to the Authority for consideration during the review period. Notice can be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on less than two weeks' notice. During that time the sale application will be in the review stage, there will be no delay of an application's approval simply due to this publication requirement.

 (b). Execution of agreement of sale. Subsection (b) provides that agreements of sale must be signed at one time by all parties before the Director or a designee on or before the date the SA-1 is filed. Paragraph (2) has been deleted because it placed limitations on the use of valid powers of attorney.

§ 1027.9. Financial fitness generally.

 Section 1027.9 provides specific guidelines related to the Authority's review of an applicant's financial fitness to own and operate Authority rights.

 (a)(1). Subsection (a)(1) requires the proposed buyer of rights to have at least $5,000 in its bank account or 2% of the value of the rights it is acquiring. For example, if a person sought to purchase a medallion for $300,000, that person must have $6,000 in its bank account in unencumbered funds. A typographical error in subsection (a)(2) has been corrected to clarify that the review will seek a balance of $5,000 or 2% of the value of rights sold, not $25,000.

 IRRC questioned the basis for this specific requirement. We believe that the owner of a medallion or certificate of public convenience must have the financial capability of paying for the basic necessities associated with operating a public utility. The presence of this small amount of available financial resources, relative to the value of the rights acquired, will evidence that the proposed owner has the ability to at least initiate the use of the rights acquired, such as the acquisition and preparation of vehicles or dispatch related equipment. This provision does not apply to drivers, only persons who seek to own and operate these public utilities.

 We have deleted the requirement that the fund balance be in place for 6 months in light of the fact that some companies will be newly formed for the purpose of acquiring the rights and may not have been in existence for 6 months.

 (a)(3). Subsection (a)(3) requires the submission of a credit report for the proposed buyer of the transferable rights and sets a credit score goal of 600. A commentator questioned the need for this requirement. The presence of a credit score below 600 is not a prohibition from ownership of transferable rights; it is a factor to be considered. However, we believe a person's credit score will provide information related to past economic dealings and will assist in the determination of the proposed buyer's fitness to operate a public utility. A typographical error was also corrected in this subsection by replacing reference to paragraph (11) of section 1027.7(b) of the proposed regulation with paragraph (12). This section requires review of the credit report of the buyer and those with integral associations with the proposed buyer who also have to submit criminal history reports. The list of those persons is identified in § 1027.7(b)(12).

 (a)(4). Subsection (a)(4) requires disclosure of outstanding and unappealed civil judgments against the proposed buyer. IRRC questioned why this was necessary. The presence of outstanding and unappealed civil judgments against a proposed buyer is not a prohibition from ownership of transferable rights; it is a factor to be considered. However, the presence of such judgments may reveal economic exposure that will strain the ability of the proposed buyer to provide quality service through the medallion or certificate of public convenience and jeopardize the loss of equipment related to that service through execution on the judgments, including upon medallions. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5713. We believe this is important information to consider when determining if the issuance of rights to a person is in the best interests of the public. A typographical error was also corrected in this subsection by replacing reference to paragraph (11) of section 1027.7(b) of the proposed regulation with paragraph (12). This section requires review of the civil judgment records of the buyer and those with integral associations with the proposed buyer who also have to submit criminal history reports. The list of those persons is identified in § 1027.7(b)(12).

§ 1027.10. Regulatory compliance review.

 Section 1027.10 of the proposed regulations provided that the Authority's review of an application to acquire transferable rights will include a review of any history of violations of the regulations of the Authority or the PUC. Applicants may not have been subject to a suspension, cancellation or revocation of rights by the Authority or common carrier rights regulated by the PUC during the year preceding the application date. IRRC questioned the meaning of the phrase ''regulatory compliance record'' in subsection (a). We have amended this subsection by replacing that phrase with ''record of regulatory violations,'' which we believe will be easily understood. The purpose of this provision is to place applicants on notice that a history of violations of Authority or PUC common carrier regulations will be considered when reviewing these applications to protect the public interest.

§ 1027.11. Authority review.

 Section 1027.11 provides general guidance as to the basis for the Authority's review of a sale application and threshold issues related to that review, being a determination that the acquisition of transferable rights by the applicant is in the public interest.

 (d). Subsection (d) of the proposed regulation provided that the Authority will review the terms of any loan associated with the acquisition of the transferable rights.

 A commentator questioned the propriety of the Authority's review of this information. This regulation does not seek to establish rules or regulations related to the lending of money and does not require the denial of applications accompanied by loan documents that are inconsistent with this section. However, one of the major problems facing the taxicab industry in Philadelphia in 2005 related to the manner in which medallions were sold and financed. Frequently, the terms of loan agreements were unreasonably harsh toward the borrower, who was often unsophisticated and insufficiently versed in the English language to understand its terms. These unreasonable lending terms have been curtailed through the use of the Authority's current locally promulgated regulations and this regulation seeks to prevent the return of that type of lending in the Philadelphia taxicab industry. We believe that loans made by lenders that may not be approved by the Commonwealth or with terms so unreasonable as to make a default and subsequent transfer of those rights likely, are not in the public interest when associated with medallions or certificates of public convenience. We believe the review of this information is crucial to the regulation of a clean, safe, reliable and well regulated taxicab industry in Philadelphia and to assure that the sale of transferable rights ''is consistent with the public interest.'' 53 Pa.C.S. § 5718(b).

§ 1027.12. Approval process and closing on sale.

 Section 1027.12 provides for the method of approval of sale applications including approval by the Authority's Board and scheduling of a closing date.

§ 1027.13. Settlement sheet.

 Section 1027.13 provides for use of a standardized settlement sheet and identifies information that must be included in that form.

§ 1027.14. Attachment of medallion.

 Section 1027.14 provides that upon the conclusion of closing on the sale of a medallion the Enforcement Department will schedule a time and date to attach the medallion to the taxicab. This process can often be completed immediately after the closing.

§ 1027.15. Commencement of service.

 Section 1027.15 provides that the new owner of rights must begin to operate those rights within 30 days of closing.

[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.

---