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

[Continued from previous Web Page]

Chapter 1029. Brokers

§ 1029.1. Purpose and definitions.

 Section 1029.1 provides for the purpose of Chapter 1029 and certain definitions related to this chapter. Subsection (b) has been amended to delete reference to broker training as a requirement. Subsection (c) has been deleted because it contained only the definition of ''broker,'' which has been defined in § 1001.10. The deletion of the definition portion of this section negates the need for reference to ''definitions'' in the title; therefore, that word has been deleted. We incorporate our response provided in §§ 1001.10 and 1029.6 as to brokers.

§ 1029.2. Use of broker.

 Section 1029.2 provides that a broker, or an attorney, must be used for all sales. The involvement of individuals experienced with regulatory matters and procedures related to the taxicab and limousine sale and operations will benefit all parties and improve the efficiency of the application review process. A commentator strongly supported this requirement and the regulations related to brokers.

§ 1029.3. Use of attorney.

 Section 1029.3 provides that the use of an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth, will supersede the requirement to use a broker.

§ 1029.4. Ineligible persons for broker certification.

 Section 1029.4 provides specific criteria that will render an individual ineligible to be a broker. As used in this section, these conditions of ineligibility relate to applicants for brokers rights.

 IRRC raised the same issue noted in its comment to § 1011.5 of the regulations here in relation to the effect of an arrest and initiation of a prosecution against an applicant for a broker registration. An individual subject to a prosecution that may result in a conviction that will render that individual ineligible to act as a broker should withhold the pursuit of that registration until the criminal matter is resolved. We believe it will be against the best interests of the public to permit the registration of such an individual and permit that individual to have access to private information about clients, as well as the client's money, and then initiate a regulatory action against the individual broker to revoke the registration upon conviction of the charges that were known and pending at the time the Authority approved the broker application in the first place.

 To the extent a criminal prosecution is initiated against a broker, the Authority may initiate a formal complaint to revoke the registration, a process that will afford the regulated party the right to a hearing on the record. We also note that the inclusion of the new subsection (f) in the final-form version of § 1011.5 enables an applicant to obtain a waiver from the provisions of § 1011.5, a process that will equally apply to broker registration applicants. Paragraph (4) has been amended to note the revised title of § 1011.7 and paragraph (6) has been amended to remove reference to training because of changes made to §§ 1029.6 and 1029.7. We incorporate our response as to those sections here.

§ 1029.5. Broker registration.

 Section 1029.5 provides guidelines for issuance of an Authority broker registration. Brokers are individuals with experience dealing with taxicab and limousine regulatory and operational matters. Brokers assist those interested in buying or selling transferable rights in a manner similar to the way a real estate agent assists buyers and sellers of real estate. The review process related to applications to sell rights or obtain new rights is extensive. The Authority has determined that these applications are successfully processed and approved on a significantly accelerated timeline when a qualified broker or attorney has assisted with the preparation of the application. Given the significant investment associated with acquiring and operating these rights, the costs associated with employing the services of a broker to shepherd the application through the regulatory review process are de minimis.

 The use of brokers for these purposes pre-dates the Authority's regulation of taxicabs and limousines in Philadelphia. The regulation of these industry participants is crucial to our mandate to provide a well regulated taxicab and limousine industry. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701(2) Brokers are involved in nearly every sale of a medallion and many certificates of public convenience. The Authority is directed to review and approve all of these sales and transfers and directly interact with these brokers and review their work product. See 53 Pa.C.S §§ 5711(c)(5), 5718(a) and (b) and 5714.1(c)(3). The registration process will also help assure those who use a broker's services that the broker's qualifications have been reviewed and approved in advance by the Authority.

 (b)(4). Subsection (b)(4) requires the individual applicant and any key employee of that applicant to provide criminal background reports as part of the standard application process. The purpose of this requirement is to assure the public that the applicant and other persons with direct control or influence over the business operations of the applicant meet a criminal background check criteria created as part of an overall assessment of good character. 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 as a broker. Brokers will occupy a position of trust in the industry and will have access to their client's sensitive financial and personal information and may be required to hold funds of the parties to a sale or transfer.

 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, and for that reason the words ''as provided in § 1011.2'' have 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.

 (b)(5). Subsection (b)(5)(ii) requires a verified statement from the broker and each key employee confirming that all are in compliance with these regulations, including § 1011.7, which deals with current payments or fees, penalties, etc. This subsection has been amended to note the revised title of § 1011.7.

 (b)(6). Subsection (b)(6) requires the submission of a Form BR-5 ''Business Experience Questionnaire'' with each broker registration application. The second sentence of paragraph (6) contained an improper reference to Form DSP-3, which has been deleted and replaced with ''Form BR-5'' in the final-form regulations.

 (b)(8). Subsection (b)(8) has been deleted to eliminate the requirement to obtain a Philadelphia Business Privilege License, which is consistent with the deletion we have made in § 1011.7. The subsequent paragraphs have been renumbered.

 (b)(11). Subsection (b)(11) (now (b)(10)) provides that an applicant for a broker registration must submit a resume identifying 5 years of prior work history. A typographical error was corrected in this subsection by adding the word ''a'' and amending ''brokers'' to ''broker.''

§ 1029.6. Broker training.

 Section 1029.6 provides for the optional training of individuals who seek a broker registration. This section specifies the subjects that must be addressed and a minimum number of hours of training. We incorporate our response provided in § 1026.5 related to the important function of brokers in the taxicab and limousine industries in Philadelphia.

 (a). Subsection (a) provides that broker training will now be an option for broker applicants. Therefore, the word ''will'' has been replaced with ''may'' and the phrase ''upon request of the applicant'' has been added. We incorporate or response to comments provided in subsection (b).

 (b). Subsection (b) provides for a minimum of 2 hours of training for broker applicants who opt for the training and specifies training subjects. IRRC questioned the value of only 2 hours of training. IRRC also asked if the Authority would accept a national licensure for brokers. We note that this section provides for a minimum of 2 hours of training, to the extent the Authority determines that this is an insufficient amount of training time, the regulation permits the flexibility to require longer training periods. We are unaware of a national broker training program that focuses on the regulations and statutes related to the taxicab and limousine industries in Philadelphia; therefore, we are unable to evaluate the suitability of such a program. Again, training of broker applicants is designed to equip those individuals with the ability to assist their clients through the sale process.

 IRRC questioned the consistency of this training requirement with the act. While we believe that such a requirement is consistent with the act and may be crucial to our regulation of the taxicab and limousine industry in Philadelphia, we will eliminate this training as a requirement. Applicants may opt to participate in this training as a means of improving their understanding of procedures and services to their clients. We will review the value of making this training a requirement and revise this provision in a future rulemaking, if necessary.

 (c). Subsection (c) has been added to this section to clarify that an applicant may discontinue training and have a broker test scheduled as provided in § 1029.7.

§ 1029.7. Broker testing.

 Section 1029.7 provides for the testing of brokers prior to issuance of registration.

 (a). Subsection (a) provides for the manner in which broker testing will be scheduled. This subsection has been amended to reflect that fact that this training is voluntary and to equitably address scheduling conflicts between the applicant's schedule and the designated testing date.

 (b). Subsection (b) identifies the subject to addressed in testing. This subsection has been changed to address the fact that testing is now voluntary. There will not necessary have been a presentation of subjects made during training for each test taken as some may opt to skip training.

 (c). Subsection (c) notes that the purpose of the test is to assure that the applicant understands the major issues associated with being a broker and references the training subjects of 1029.6(b). This subsection has been changed to address the fact that testing is now voluntary.

§ 1029.8. Broker registration approval.

 Section 1029.8 provide that the Authority will issue documentation to a successful broker application confirmation a registered status.

§ 1029.9. Broker representation letter.

 Section 1029.9 provides that a broker must file the broker registration letter through a designated form as part of documents submitted with an application for each sale.

§ 1029.10. Broker agreements required.

 Section 1029.10 requires a broker to use a written agreement to confirm a broker relationship and provides for declarations that must be made in such agreements.

§ 1029.11. Professional liability insurance.

 Section 1029.11 requires brokers to maintain certain levels of insurance to protect clients from negligence, including errors and omissions. A commentator suggested that the requirement to maintain a policy in the aggregate amount of $3,000,000 is excessive. We disagree. Many taxicab and limousine businesses that may be subject to sale through a broker are worth far in excess of $3,000,000. Also the negligent sale of several medallions could easily result in damages at or about these policy limits. For that reason we believe this insurance requirement is reasonable and necessary to ensure confidence in the actions of brokers, which are so integral to the sale of transferable rights and the overall health of the taxicab and limousine industry in Philadelphia. However, in order to be consistent with the overall scope of this final-form regulation we will maintain the status quo in Philadelphia by requiring only $50,000 in insurance and review the propriety of increasing that coverage through a subsequent rulemaking.

§ 1029.12. Broker duties.

 Section 1029.12 provides for certain duties and obligations related to the conduct of being a broker.

§ 1029.13. Disclosure of interest.

 Section 1029.13 provides for the disclosure of certain interests by a broker to a client. This section is intended to create transparency and eliminate conflicts of interest.

§ 1029.14. Broker conduct and obligations.

 Section 1029.14 provides a series requirements intended to outline the minimum level of good conduct and duties owed to clients of brokers. A typographical error was corrected in subsections (d)(3) and (4) by adding the word ''the'' to each subsection.

§ 1029.15. Duty to deposit money belonging to another into escrow account.

 Section 1029.15 provides for the standards and duties applicable to brokers upon receipt of client funds or other funds not belonging to the broker and related to the broker relation.

§ 1029.16. Nonwaiver of escrow duty.

 Section 1029.16 provides that the broker's escrow duties may not be waived through an agreement with a client.

§ 1029.17. Deadline for depositing money into escrow account.

 Section 1029.17 provides deadlines associated with a broker's obligation to escrow funds.

§ 1029.18. Escrow account.

 Section 1029.18 provides for the creation and maintenance of an escrow account by a broker.

§ 1029.19. Prohibition against commingling or misappropriation.

 Section 1029.19 provides that a broker may not commingle or misappropriate escrowed funds.

§ 1029.20. Procedure when entitlement to money held in escrow is disputed.

 Section 1029.20 provides for the procedure that a broker must adhere to in the event that funds placed in escrow are subject to a dispute.

§ 1029.21. Escrow records.

 Section 1029.21 provides for the records that a broker must maintain in regard to funds placed in escrow.

§ 1029.22. Broker in possession of medallion.

 Section 1029.22 provides that a broker who comes into possession of a medallion must deliver the medallion to the Authority for storage within 48 hours.

Subpart C. Limousines

Chapter 1051. General provisions

§ 1051.1. Purpose.

 Section 1051.1 provides for the purpose of this subpart.

 (Editor's Note: The Legislative Reference Bureau suggested and IRRC agreed that definitions used throughout the entire subpart should only be included in § 1001.10. Duplicate definitions in §§ 1011.2 and 1051.2 have been deleted from this final-form rulemaking.)

§ 1051.2. Definitions.

 Section 1051.2 provides definitions primarily applicable to the limousine subpart of this rulemaking. IRRC commented that each subpart of the final rulemaking should contain a definition section identifying terms used in that section and that the terms should be consistent throughout the rulemaking. We agree with IRRC and have attempted to reduce, as much as practical, the use of definitional language outside of the definition sections. IRRC also suggested that each defined term used in a part be defined in that part. That has resulted in the duplication of several definitions, as we noted in our responses to IRRC's comments to §§ 1001.10 and 1011.2, which we incorporate here.

 Several terms in this section have been amended and others have been added, including those referenced in our response to § 1027.2, which we incorporate here. Other additions or changes to this section are set forth below.

 Consistent with the Authority's response above to IRRC's comments on § 1001.10 (relating to definitions) the terms ''broker'' and ''transferable rights'' have been defined in § 1051.2. The term ''sale'' was defined in § 1027.2 (formerly relating to definitions) and will appear in this section of the final rulemaking because it is used in the term ''transferable rights,'' as will the definition of ''securities'' as referenced in our response to § 1011.2.

 IRRC also commented that the term ''common carrier'' as defined in this section is vague and appears unnecessary in light of definitions provided in sections 5701 and 5703(g) of the act. We have changed this definition to address IRRC's comment and be consistent with that provided in § 1011.2. Our comment to § 1011.2 addresses this issue and we incorporate it here.

 IRRC commented as to the term ''key employee'' and noted that the following language was unclear: ''other entity identified by the Authority.'' We agree with IRRC and have deleted that phrase. This term has been amended to clarify that it applies to applicants and regulated persons. We believe this change should eliminate the potential confusion noted by IRRC.

 The term ''limousine'' has been revised by deleting a reference to the act. As noted by IRRC and another commentator, the act does not define this term. Limousine has been redefined to mean any vehicle authorized by the Authority to provide limousine service. IRRC suggested that the term ''limousine certificate'' as defined in proposed § 1059.2 be moved to this section for consistency, as well as § 1011.2. The term need not appear in section § 1001.10 because it is not used in Subpart A.

 IRRC and another commentator suggested that the term ''limousine service'' was ill defined in the proposed regulation. IRRC recommended that the definition of limousine service simply be adopted from the act. We agree and have amended the final-form regulation as recommended to incorporate the definition provide in section 5701 of the act.

 Several additional terms have been added to this provision in response to a comment by IRRC and as more fully addressed in our response to comments to § 1001.10.

 IRRC also commented that the definition of the term ''moving violations'' contained a typographical error. We agree and have added the word ''of'' after the word ''one.'' The term ''proposed buyer'' has been deleted and moved to the position below ''parking violations'' to correct that alphabetizing error in the proposed version of the regulations. IRRC commented as to the term ''regulated person'' and suggested that the phrase ''this part, or an order of the Authority'' be deleted because reference to the act is sufficient. We agree with IRRC's comment and have made the requested changes. We have also added the term ''or regulated party'' to the defined term to address the alternating use of those common terms in the final form regulations. IRRC made the same comment about the term ''rights'' that was raised in § 1011.2. We incorporate here our response provided in that section above.

 IRRC note the comment of other commentators that the term ''stretched vehicle'' was inconsistent with federal law. We disagree that the term is either inconsistent with federal law or that limousine service in such vehicles is outside the jurisdiction of the Authority (just as it is not outside the jurisdiction of the PUC). However, as a result of changes made to § 1053.41, the definition of this term is no longer necessary and it has been deleted in the final-form regulations.

 The term ''transfer fee'' was defined in this section of the proposed regulations in a manner consistent with the definition in § 1011.2, but differently from the manner in which the term was more precisely defined in § 1027.2. Therefore, ''transfer fee'' has been amended in this section of the final-form regulations to reflect the definition provided in § 1027.2 of the proposed regulations. That term is now defined consistently throughout the final-form regulations.

 IRRC also noted the comment of a commentator relating to various ''chauffeured services'' and questioned if those services are included in limousine service or not. It is impossible to predict which varied attempt to provide a chauffeured type service is or is not going to conflict with limousine service without knowing the context of the proffered service. We believe we have provided clear guidance as to what type of service is regulated by the Authority. To the extent a person provides service covered by the act without first obtaining a proper certificate of public convenience and otherwise complying with the act and our regulations, the Enforcement Department will conduct an investigation and act accordingly.

§ 1051.3. Annual rights renewal process.

 Section 1051.3 provides the process through which the Authority will annually review the status of limousine certificates and limousine drivers and review the renewing person's continuing eligibility to hold the rights and process assessment and renewal fees in conjunction with § 1015.4. The purpose of this section is the same as stated in response to § 1011.3 and we incorporate our response to comments to that section here.

 (a). Expiration of certificate. Subsection (a) provides that the Authority will consider rights expired for failing to complete the annual renewal process provided for in this section. This has been the practice in Philadelphia since 2005.

 (a)(1). Subsection (a) provides that limousine certificates will expire on July 1 of each year. The July 1 expiration was a typographical error. This date has been changed to June 30 of each year. The Authority's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30, as do the periods covered by the annual renewal and fee payment process.

 IRRC questioned the impact of the June 30 deadline upon a party who may have been issued a new certificate only a month before the renewal deadline. We agree with IRRC's concern and have added a new subsection (f) to this section which provides that a certificate will not be subject to the renewal requirements of this section during the calendar year in which it is first issued. The addition of this section has necessitated the inclusion of exception language in subsections (a)(1) in the final form regulation.

 (a)(2). Subsection (a)(2) provides that a limousine driver's certificate will expire one year from the date issued, if not otherwise renewed. IRRC and another commentator questioned the reason for an annual renewal when a state issued driver's license is issued for a longer period. We require annual renewal because we seek to confirm that an individual remains qualified to be a driver. We believe this is crucial to our goal to provide clean, safe, reliable, and well regulated limousine service. For example, if the state issued driver's license of a limousine driver is in a suspended or revoked status or if a driver has been convicted of a felony in the last year, the renewing party may be denied the requested renewal. The Authority does not receive notice from the Department of Transportation when a state issued driver's license has been suspended, nor do we receive notice from the criminal courts when a driver is convicted of a crime that would prohibit that individual from driving a limousine service. We have to look for that information. The annual renewal provides that opportunity. We believe this process works very well with a minimal burden upon either the Authority or the regulated community. That burden has already been factored into baseline costs of the regulated industries because it has been the process followed in Philadelphia since 2005.

 (b). Expired rights. Subsection (b) provides for the invalidation of expired rights.

 (b)(1). Subsection (b)(1) of the proposed regulation provided that expired rights will be placed out of service and cancelled by the Authority. We have amended this section by deleting the cancellation language and will, instead, rely solely on the out of service enforcement mechanism provided for in § 1003.32 in cases where affirmative action is taken to have expired rights invalidated.

 (b)(2). Subsection (b)(2) provides that a limousine driver's certificate will be deemed cancelled if it has been expired for 60 or more days. IRRC questioned the use of notice for deemed cancellations of this nature. Preliminarily, we have amended this section in the final-form regulations to expand the 60 day period to 1 year. Therefore, this provision will only apply when a driver fails to renew a driver's certificate for an entire year after the date provided on the driver's certificate as the expiration date. There are thousands of taxicab and limousine drivers in Philadelphia and the Authority currently does not have the technological capacity to track the status of each driver's certificate. This is the responsibility of the driver. We agree that a notice of cancellation or expiration may be of assistance in certain situations and will consider including it in our standard operating procedures. We will consider adjustments to future budgets that will be necessary to fund a process of tracking and mailing notices to thousands of drivers throughout the year. We do expect all regulated parties to remain aware of the status of their rights on their own, particularly when the expiration date is printed on the certificate and the certificate is carried and displayed for public review by the driver everyday. We note that the cancellation of a driver's certificate pursuant to this section will not necessarily prohibit an individual from reapplying for a new driver's certificate.

 (c). Renewal forms. Subsection (c) provides for the procedures related to the filing of annual renewal forms.

 (c)(1). Subsection (c)(1) requires rights renewal forms to be filed with the Director of the TLD. In order to be more specific, this subsection has been changed in the final form regulations to direct that renewal forms be submitted to the Manager of Administration.

 (c)(2). Subsection (c)(2) identifies certain renewal requirements and forms applicable to the different types of service providers subject to the act. IRRC questioned the implication of the phrase ''order of the Authority.'' In order to remove any confusion we have deleted that phrase from the final-form regulations.

 (c)(3)(i). Subsection (c)(3)(i) requires limousine certificate renewal forms to be filed with the Authority on or before May 15 of each year. IRRC questioned if this filing date will permit the Authority time to review all of the applications. Upon further review of this matter we agree with IRRC and have moved this filing date forward to April 1 in the final-form regulations.

 (c)(3)(ii). Subsection (c)(3)(ii) requires individuals holding limousine driver's certificates to file the required renewal form 60 days before the driver's certificate is scheduled to expire. IRRC questioned whether 60 days was enough time to permit a driver to submit a renewal form, we believe it is. However, to be consistent with changes made to § 1011.3(c)(3)(iv) relating to taxicab driver renewals, we have set a time frame during which the renewal form may be filed. This change clarifies that the renewal form need not be filed on a specific day, but during a range of days. A commentator suggested that the driver renewal form should be filed out only a week before the expiration date. We disagree. We believe such a small window of time will burden all parties with the obligation to complete a hasty review with limited time for correction to renewal problems or supplementation of information necessary to complete renewal.

 (e). Suspended rights. Subsection (e) has been added to this section to require those holding rights that have been suspended to complete the renewal process outlined in this section, despite the fact that the rights may be in a suspended status at the time they are scheduled to expire. This requirement is counterintuitive, but necessary. The suspension period for rights is generally established through Authority order following an enforcement action, for that reason the terms of suspensions all vary. This section will assure that on the date the suspension period ends the subject rights will be in a current status and be capable of immediate operation without need to submit to some irregular renewal date. IRRC noted the absence of this provision in this section, while it was present in § 1011.3, and we have made this amendment to correct that oversight. We incorporate our response to questions related to this provision provided in § 1011.3.

 (f). New certificates. Subsection (f) provides that a limousine certificate will not be subject to the renewal requirements of this section during the calendar year in which it is first issued. This new subsection has been added for the reason provided in response to comments to (a)(1) above.

 IRRC also questioned the absence of a provision related to waivers in this section, while one was found in the proposed regulations at § 1011.3(a)(4). We note that subsection (a)(4) of § 1011.3 has been deleted in the final-form regulations. We have not included it in this section for the reason provided for its deletion from § 1011.3.

§ 1051.4. Annual assessments and renewal fees.

 Section 1051.4 provides procedures related to the payment of annual assessments and fees which are included in the Authority's fee schedule. The fee schedule is developed to fund the Authority's estimated annual operational costs as required by section 5707(b) of the act. Under that section the budget and fee schedule of the Authority are subject to annual review by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate and are not part of this regulatory promulgation process.

 IRRC noted that some commentators have questioned the difference in the way the Authority and the PUC collect fees from regulated parties in order to support the regulatory functions of their respective agencies. Based on those comments, IRRC requested that the Authority explain why there appears to be an increased fiscal impact between Authority and PUC regulations. We incorporate our response to this question provided in § 1011.4.

 (d)(1). Late assessment and renewal fee payments. Subsection (d)(1) provides a deadline for making assessment and renewal fee payments. IRRC questioned why the deadline for payment is 3:00 p.m. on the date the payment is due when the Authority's offices are open until 5:00 p.m. The 3:00 p.m. deadline will provide the Authority's staff with the time to process the payment and address any issues or problems that may arise in the payment process. We have deleted the 3:00 p.m. deadline for the reasons provided in response to comments in § 1011.4(h). We have also amended 1051.4(d)(2) to comport with our response to § 1011.4(h)(3) related to the discretionary application of the out of service process to regulated parties who do not make assessment or renewal fee payments on time. The deletion of paragraph (1) has negated the need for the use of paragraphs in this subsection.

§ 1051.5. Ineligibility due to conviction or arrest.

 Section 1051.5 addresses the eligibility of a regulated party or applicant to hold Authority rights when that person has been convicted or is being prosecuted for committing certain crimes. IRRC and other commentators raised concerns about the effect upon regulated parties of an arrest and prosecution, as opposed to a conviction and the impact upon associated parties. This same issue was raised and responded to in § 1011.5, which is identical to this section. We have made the same changes to this section necessitated by comments to § 1011.5, our response to that section is incorporated here.

§ 1051.6. Payment of outstanding fines, fees and [,] penalties[ and taxes].

 Section 1051.6 of the proposed regulation required regulated parties and applicants for rights issued by the Authority to remain current on the payment of fines, fees and taxes payable to the Authority, the City of Philadelphia or the Commonwealth. This section mirrors § 1011.7. We have made the same changes here in the final-form regulations in response to comments from IRRC and other commentators that we did in § 1011.7. We incorporate our response to § 1011.7 here.

§ 1051.7. Facility inspections.

 Section 1051.7 provides that the Authority may inspect the facilities of certificate holders and brokers used to provide service pursuant to the act, this section mirrors § 1011.8 (relating to facility inspections). IRRC commented that the terms ''operating locations'' and ''facility inspections'' were vague and required differentiation. We agree with IRRC's comment and have revised this section by deleting the general language used in the proposed form regulations and replacing it with language specific to limousine certificate holders and brokers. A commentator suggested that some limitation as to when these facility inspections may occur should be made a part of the final form regulations; we agree and have added such language. We incorporate here our response to comments to § 1011.8, which is nearly identical to this section.

§ 1051.8. Limousine service limitations.

 Section 1051.8 provides general guidance on the service limitations associated with limousine service, particularly relating to who may operate a limousine and the continuing obligation of a certificate holder to supervise the operation of its limousines.

 (c). Subsection (c) provides for driver requirements related to limousine service provide as part of a funeral. IRRC commented that this subsection uses the term ''Authority-certified'' limousine for the first time and questioned the statutory basis for the Authority's regulation of limousines used to provide local, nonscheduled common carrier service for passengers on an exclusive basis for compensation in a funeral. Limousine service provided during a funeral squarely meets the definition of ''limousine service'' as defined in the act. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701. To eliminate any confusion about this wording we have deleted the term ''Authority-certified'' from this subsection.

 The purpose of this subsection is to continue the practice in Philadelphia of permitting funeral homes to provide limousine service as a component of their overall funeral services without need to secure an individual with a driver's certificate. Because these businesses are not otherwise engaged in providing limousine service (except during a funeral), this exemption has been created for funeral related limousine service only. The vehicles do have to be inspected and otherwise comply with the act, these regulations or an order of the Authority. To the extent that the limousine is used to provide any other type of limousine service, a certified driver must be used. The drivers used during funerals do need to submit a criminal history report to the Authority to evidence compliance with § 1051.5 and possess a valid state issued driver's license. These drivers are not permitted to provide any other form of limousine service except as part of the funeral service.

§ 1051.9. Discrimination in service.

 Section 1051.9 provides that limousine service providers may not illegally discriminate against people based on race, religion, etc.

§ 1051.10. Record retention.

 Section 1051.10 provides guidelines for the manner in which records related to service provided under the act or this part must be stored. IRRC's comments in regard to this section were identical to those submitted for § 1011.11. We incorporate our response to comments provided in § 1011.11 here. A commentator suggested that this section required the retention of paper through subsection (c). Subsection (c) has been deleted in the final-form regulations as part of the overall modifications made to this section.

§ 1051.11. Aiding or abetting violations.

 Section 1051.11 provides that a person may not aid, abet, encourage or require a regulated party to violate the act, this part or an order of the Authority.

§ 1051.12. Interruptions of service.

 Section 1051.12 requires limousine certificate holders to report any discontinuance in the provision of limousine service that lasts 5 or more days. The proposed regulations contained more restrictive reporting requirements and terms for cancellation of the certificates in violation of this section than we believe are unnecessary and have removed them from the final-form regulations. IRRC and another commentated questioned the need for the narrower reporting timeline in the proposed regulation, as well as the meaning of the terms ''interruption'' and ''suspension'' as previously used in that section.

 The final-form regulation clarifies that any discontinuation in the provision of limousine service that lasts 5 or more consecutive days must be reported to the TLD's Manager of Enforcement within 7 days of the beginning or the period of discontinued service. The report may be easily submitted through email and must identify the reason for the discontinuation and its projected duration. We need to maintain information of this nature in order to monitor the current supply of limousines in the Philadelphia area. Events which lead to the discontinuance of a large number of limousine certificate holders may be indicative of problems that require regulatory attention by the Authority. Without the simple and easy reporting requirement created by this section, the Authority will be without important information that directly affects the limousine industry in Philadelphia. The language of subsection (a) of the proposed regulation has been amended and now comprises the entirety of this section, negating the need for subsections.

§ 1051.13. Voluntary suspension of certificate.

 Section 1051.13 created a process through which a certificate holder may seek to voluntarily suspend its certificate. IRRC raised the same issues noted in regard to § 1011.14 in regard to this section. Section 1011.14 provides for voluntary suspension related to taxicabs, while this section deals with limousines. We believe we have addressed IRRC's concerns in this section by making the same relevant changes made to § 1011.14 and we incorporate here our response to comments to that section. The question of fees that may be charged for considerations of applications related to this section will be addressed through the fee scheduled promulgation process provided for in section 5707(b) of the act.

§ 1051.14. Death or incapacitation of a certificate holder or certain persons with controlling interest.

 Section 1051.14 provides for the disposition of a limousine certificate of public convenience in the event of the death or incapacitation of the certificate holder or designated persons with a controlling interest in the entity that owns the rights.

§ 1051.15. Power of successors by law.

 Section 1051.15 provides guidance on the operation and disposition of a certificate of public convenience when taken into possession by the successor in law.

§ 1051.16. Limitations.

 Section 1051.16 simply provides that those who temporarily continue the operation of limousines through the certificate of public convenience possessed through the procedures provided in §§ 1051.14 and 1051.15 must adhere to the act and these regulations.

§ 1051.17. Application review generally.

 Section 1051.7 provides that applications for limousine rights will be reviewed pursuant to the standard application review procedures of § 1003.51.

§ 1051.18. Method of operation.

 This section presented a form of ''catch all'' designation for limousine service that was not otherwise identified in the rule making. IRRC noted the comment of the PUC that the provision should include not only the potential loophole types of limousine service, but all types of service. We have addressed this concern by eliminating this section as superfluous.

Chapter 1053. Standard classifications of
limousine service

Subchapter A. Classifications

§ 1053.1. Standard classifications of limousine service.

 Section 1053.1 provides for the various types of limousine service as defined broadly in the act and as classified by the Authority as permitted by 53 Pa.C.S. § 5741(a). A commentator suggested that there are too many types of limousine service created in the regulations; another commentator suggested that an existing classification of limousine service has been eliminated by these regulations. These final-form regulations continue the types of limousine service provided in Philadelphia since 2005 in a manner consistent with the definition of ''limousine service'' provided in the act.

 (b). Section (b) provides for the various classifications of limousine service that will be approved by the Authority. IRRC noted that language in the second sentence of this section seemed to create a mechanism for the creation of classifications of limousine service outside the method provided for in the act. We have deleted that sentence to address IRRC's concerns and amended the grammar of the first sentence of this subsection necessitated by that deletion.

 (b)(1). Luxury limousine service. This subsection of the proposed regulations provided for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience to provide luxury limousine service as defined in this chapter.

 In the final-form regulations this subsection has been amended to include reference to the two existing classifications luxury limousine service. The first is comprised entirely of the service identified in the proposed regulation with amendments to address IRRC's comments as provided below. That service now appears as (b)(1)(i). The second existing classification of limousine service in Philadelphia provides luxury limousine type service, through vans or similar vehicles that do not meet the requirements of a ''luxury vehicle.'' This service is provided in a vehicle that can seat between 9 and 15 people. Subparagraph (ii) has been added to this subsection to clarify that this distinct type of service has not been discontinued through this rule making.

 (b)(1)(i). Subsection (b)(1)(i) provides for the luxury limousine classification provided for in the proposed regulations under this section. IRRC commented in regard to the original language now found in subparagraph (i) that the term ''luxury-type vehicles'' is used without defining the term. However, this term is defined in § 1053.23. To address IRRC's concern we have included a reference to § 1053.23 in subparagraph (i). We also note that this is the same format provided for in the PUC's regulations; therefore, this language will be familiar to regulated parties who also operate through a PUC certificate of public convenience. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.333. The last sentence of this paragraph has been amended to clarify that it only applies to the subparagraph (i) classification.

 (b)(1)(ii). This subsection has been added to address the concern of a commentator about the potential elimination of a category of limousine service. There is currently a type of limousine service provided in Philadelphia primarily through the use of vans that can seat at least nine passengers including the driver. Service providers have paid for this right and new applicants have always been eligible to do so. This subsection will not create a new classification or a new cost associated with acquiring or maintaining these rights. These vehicles will not seat more than 15 passengers including the driver. While not necessarily luxurious, these vehicles do otherwise provide standard limousine service, simply to several people at a time. The service is currently referred to as ''Exclusive Bus'' service, which we have found ill-fitting. We believe that the continuation of this service will maintain the status quo in Philadelphia and will fill the public need addressed successfully by this service in Philadelphia since 2005. The failure to include the distinction between these classifications of limousine service in the proposed regulation was an oversight. These separate classifications have existed in Philadelphia since 2005.

 (b)(2). Airport transfer service. This subsection provides for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience to provide airport transfer services as defined in this chapter. This subsection has been amended to bring the parameters of airport shuttle service in line with the definition of that service provided in section 5741(a.2) and to clarify that the definition is applicable to those service carriers authorized by the Authority as opposed to those similarly situated service providers certificated by the PUC, which specifically commented on the need to address this definition. IRRC and the PUC also commented on the fact that the term ''bus station'' is not included in section 5741(a.2) which relates to this type of service, but instead ''hotel'' is used in the act. We have amended this section to address the concerns of IRRC and the PUC.

 (b)(3). Remote carrier. This subsection provides for the classification of limousine service that will seek to pickup passengers at Philadelphia airports, railroad stations and hotels using only a PUC issued certificate of public convenience. The Authority is constrained to regulate this type of service, but has opted to employ a very limited form of oversight, provided these PUC carriers are in compliance with PUC regulations and certain Authority regulations focused on registration and safety compliance. See § 1053.43. Authority certificates of public convenience to provide limousine service automatically grants access to Philadelphia's airports, train stations and hotels, without need to obtain a remote service provider designation.

 This subsection has been amended to address potential confusion among PUC carriers authorized as ''limousines,'' ''airport shuttle services,'' and ''group and party services.'' While the definition of limousine service provided in section 5701 of the act considers these various classifications of services to be ''limousine services,'' the terminology employed by the PUC does not. Therefore, the final-form regulation specifically identifies the PUC carriers intended to be included within the meaning of the term ''remote carrier,'' because the term ''limousine'' was simply to narrow.

 IRRC questioned the impact of section 5741(a.3)(3) on this subsection and questioned a perceived conflict between the two. We do not believe that a conflict exists. Section 5741(a.3) identifies the Philadelphia related rights that limousines certificated by the PUC only will have as of right under the act.

 Generally speaking, a limousine certificate holder in Pennsylvania may initiate or terminate service in an area outside of its defined geographic boundaries, provided one of the two (the point of origination or point of destination) is in the approved geographic boundary of the certificate holder. Section 5741(a.3)(3) creates an exception to that standard service practice by identifying the Authority as the sole source of authorization to provide limousine service that originates at airports, train stations or hotels in Philadelphia, regardless of where the service destination may be. We developed the remote service provider classification to provide a level of certainty among PUC limousine certificate holders who do not provide limousine service within Philadelphia, but who do commonly engage in the origination of service at airports, train stations or hotels in Philadelphia that terminates in areas outside of Philadelphia. We do not believe that carriers with such limited contacts in Philadelphia should be required to obtain Authority certificates of public convenience.

 Because this narrow classification of a limousine service provider will not provide service within Philadelphia, but instead primarily in PUC territory, we believe it is appropriate to create this reduced level of regulation. We have amended this section to reflect the fact that registrants for remote carrier status will be issued a certificate of public convenience to provide that limited Philadelphia service along with the remote carrier stickers. See § 1053.43(f). The certificate of public convenience will be renewed through the streamlined remote carrier registration process as provided in § 1053.43(d)(1) and (4). We believe this will address IRRC's comment to § 1051.3 related to the method of approving PUC carriers to provide service from airports, train stations or hotels in Philadelphia.

 The act grants the Authority the power to regulate this classification of service and to promulgate this regulation, which will reduce the costs of these PUC limousine certificate holders who would otherwise be constrained to obtain an Authority certificate of public convenience or abandon service from their PUC areas to the most popular destinations in Philadelphia, or vice versa. We do not believe those alternatives would be in the best interest of the public and we see no conflict between this subsection and section 5741(a.3)(3) of the act.

 Also, the final sentence of subsection (b)(3) has been deleted. This was a non-substantive sentence and we do not believe that the example provided by that sentence was helpful or is applicable given the changes to remote carrier authorization represented in the final-form regulation.

Subchapter B. Luxury limousine service

§ 1053.21. Purpose.

 Section 1053.21 provides that this subchapter applies to luxury limousine service.

§ 1053.22. Method of operation.

 Section 1053.22 provides general guidance on the manner in which luxury limousine service may be provided in Philadelphia. This section represents a nearly word-for-word adoption of the same language used by the PUC to regulate luxury limousine service in the rest of the Commonwealth. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.332. IRRC commented that subsection (a) created caveats to the requirements of this section without sufficient identification of the reason or manner in which such exceptions would apply. We believe that the language used in this section and the regulation of the PUC is very clear and that it is understood by all regulated parties. However, we will address IRRC's concern by deleting the phrase ''Unless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart or the certificate of public convenience'' from the final-form regulation. IRRC also suggested that the word ''following'' be inserted before the word ''rights,'' we have made that change.

 (a)(2). Subsection (a)(2) requires a single payment for a given luxury limousine service trip by either one person or an organization on behalf of all of the passengers, not each of the passengers on an individual basis. This is consistent with the overall concept of exclusive service. This provision also represents a direct and unedited adoption of the PUC's regulation related to this exact issue. See § 29.332(a)(2). IRRC noted the comment of a commentator expressing confusion about the import of this paragraph. Because the commentator is the Vice President of a company that holds a luxury limousine certificate of public convenience from the PUC, this provision already applies to the commentator and will simply need to be followed both in Philadelphia and the balance of the Commonwealth.

§ 1053.23. Vehicle and equipment requirements.

 Section 1053.23 provides for vehicle and equipment requirements related to the provision of luxury limousine service and seeks to mandate the use of a high quality vehicles for this purpose, consistent with the expectations of the general public. This section represents an adoption of the PUC's regulation at 52 Pa. Code § 29.333 (relating to vehicle and equipment requirements). A commentator suggested that this section would prohibit the use of a Lincoln Town Car, we disagree. Preliminarily, we note again that the Authority's use of the language in this section will bring parity between the requirements of both the PUC and the Authority. Additionally, we are uncertain as to which of the requirements the commentator is referencing as creating this prohibition, but to the extent reference was made the minimum wheelbase of 109 inches, a Lincoln Town Car would qualify as a luxury limousine given its factory specified wheelbase of 111.7 inches for the Signature Limited edition and 123.7 inches for the Signature L series.

 A commentator noted that the Authority maintains a list of vehicle's acceptable for limousine service at § 1055.20 and suggested that the list constitutes a separate set of requirements, in addition to this definition of a luxury limousine. We disagree. The Authority routinely fields telephone calls from limousine certificate holders about the ability of a particular make or model of vehicle to meet basic regulatory requirements, such as leg room, wheel base, etc. The list of approved vehicles is maintained to advise limousine certificate holders of the vehicles that have been approved for service in order to save the certificate holder the time of researching the issue or potential cost of buying a vehicle and then learning that it is not compliant with the regulations. This vehicle list is not exclusive and will be continually updated to provide up-to-date information.

§ 1053.24. Consumer information.

 Section 1053.24 provides that postings must be placed in limousines to provide notice to limousine passengers as to how to file limousine service related complaints with the Authority and provides specific contact information. A commentator suggested that this type of notice is inappropriate to luxury service. We incorporate our response to comments to § 1055.4(15) and have amended this section in a manner consistent with those comments. We have also deleted subsection headings (a) and (b), because the information in prior subsection (b) is the actual language that the prior subsection (a) will require in the posting. Because all of the information in this section is part of the same paragraph, subsections are not necessary. The Authority's contact telephone number has been changed.

Subchapter C. Airport transfer service

§ 1053.31. Purpose.

 Section 1053.31 provides general guidance on the purpose of Subchapter C. A typographical error was corrected in this section by adding the word ''to,'' which was missing in the proposed regulation.

§ 1053.32. Method of operation.

 Section 1053.32 addresses the Authority's airport transfer service classification of limousine service. IRRC commented that the first sentence of this section created a caveat to the requirements of this section without sufficient identification of the reason or manner in which such exceptions would apply. We believe that the language used in this section and the regulation of the PUC is very clear and that it is understood by all regulated parties. However, we will address IRRC's concern by deleting the phrase ''Unless otherwise specifically provided in the certificate of public convenience'' from the final-form regulations.

 IRRC also noted the comment of the PUC which suggested that this section should be modified to clarify that it applies to certificates issued by the Authority and not the PUC. While we do not express an opinion as to the distinction between the definition of limousine service in the act and the effect of section 5741(a.2) upon that definition, we have amended this section to delete the language which essentially paraphrased section 5741(a.2.) and to simply specifically cite that section of the act to avoid any source of confusion.

§ 1053.33. Tariff and schedule requirements.

 Section 1053.33 provides guidance on requirements related to tariffs, including filing with the Authority.

§ 1053.34. Consumer information.

 Section 1053.34 provides guidance on the required consumer information that should be posted in limousines. The Authority's contact telephone number has been changed.

Subchapter D. Large vehicles and remote carriers

§ 1053.41. Large vehicles.

 Section 1053.41 creates special requirements related to limousine service provided in large vehicles. The definition of ''limousine service'' in the act does not contain a seating capacity limitation; therefore, a vehicle with a seating capacity of 55 people that provides local, nonscheduled common carrier service for passengers on an exclusive basis for compensation, provides limousine service under the act, and is within the Authority's regulatory jurisdiction. Special rules related to these large vehicle limousines have been in place in Philadelphia since 2005 and before that time these vehicles were regulated by the PUC in Philadelphia and throughout the Commonwealth. The act divested the PUC of that power in Philadelphia only; however the PUC continues to regulate these carriers throughout the rest of the Commonwealth. We have not created a new category of limousines to regulate, as one commentator suggests, this type of limousine has always been regulated.

 A large vehicle is simply a limousine that can seat 16 passengers, including the driver. Because these vehicles are not generally understood to be limousines by the general public and due to certain federal preemption issues addressed below, we have created a modified regulatory scheme for this classification of service. Subsection (a) requires that limousine certificate holders using large vehicles first be PUC certificate holders for the type of service to be provided in Philadelphia as a prerequisite to registering with the Authority. Subsection (b) identifies what regulations these large vehicles must then adhere to, including registration with the Authority.

 IRRC noted the suggestion of one commentator that any regulation of this classification of service is prohibited by federal statute. The commentator cited 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1)(C) in support of that position. The commentator did not cite § 14501(a)(2) which provides:

Matters not covered. Paragraph (1) shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a State to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle, or the authority of a State to regulate carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-insurance authorization.

 The commentator supported its position that the Authority was preempted from regulating large vehicles by noting that the PUC and Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles already impose safety regulations upon these large vehicles, as well as insurance filings and moderate registration requirements, negating any need for the Authority to do so. See 67 Pa. Code Chapters 229 and 231, see also 52 Pa. Code 32.11. The commentator fails to consider that the PUC no longer has jurisdiction to regulate these service providers in Philadelphia; therefore, if the Authority does not do so, no one will. Additionally, the Authority's regulations as they relate to large vehicles only address safety, insurance and certain minor registration requirements. Another commentator suggested that special regulations for these large vehicles are inconsistent with the statute, without any specific reference. We disagree and believe by treating these carriers in a manner like the PUC we have duly addressed the narrow field of authority we have here without coming into conflict with federal preemption issues. We also believe the final-form regulations are not preempted by federal statute and we have modified them further to comport with the practices of the PUC.

 (a). Subsection (a) requires large vehicles to have a PUC certificate of public convenience for the designated classification of limousine service or substantially similar categorization of service provided by the PUC as a prerequisite to obtaining Authority limousine rights. PUC certification does not grant these carriers with the authorization to provide service within Philadelphia that is within the jurisdiction of the Authority. IRRC asked if the PUC certification of these carriers equated to automatic reciprocity with the PPA; it does not. The Authority's review and certification of these carriers is necessary in order to permit their continued access to Philadelphia. They must register, pay a fee, evidence compliance with PUC certification obligations, confirm current insurance and provide service within Philadelphia consistent with the requirements of this chapter. These carriers remain subject to the Authority's regulatory enforcement as provided in § 1053.43(d), (e) and (g). IRRC also questioned the validity of the licensure process considering that the proposed regulations only authorized the issuance of a registration. We agree with IRRC's comments and now provide for a certification process in § 1053.43(g), which will address this issue. The PUC also requires a similar registration process for these large vehicle carriers that results in the issuance of a certificate.

 (b). Subsection (b) of the proposed regulation provided that large vehicles would be exempt from most of the requirements of this chapter, except for specifically identified provisions. However, vehicles that had been ''stretched'' to a seating capacity that met the large vehicle threshold would not enjoy that exemption under the proposed regulation. The final-form regulation eliminates the stretch vehicle language entirely from this section because we believe it created unnecessary confusion and that an exemption of that nature was not necessary for the few vehicles that fell into that category.

 The final-form regulation also makes clear that the driver of the vehicle is included in the calculation of the vehicle's seating capacity, which is a commonly understood concept and the failure to include that language in the proposed regulation was an oversight. We have also amended this section to provide that the requirements of this subpart, as opposed to the ''chapter,'' do not apply to large vehicles, except for the requirements of § 1053.43(c)—(f). We have also amended this section to delete the reference to the subsections of § 1053.43. A comment by IRRC to § 1053.43(b), seems to reference confusion created by that reference. An exemption from only this chapter would not have achieved the goal of narrowing the regulatory scope applicable to large vehicles. Because § 1053.43 was drafted to address the special rules that will cover remote carriers and large vehicles, reference to specific subsections is unnecessary here.

§ 1053.42. Remote carriers.

 Section 1053.42 provides guidance as to the limitations on services that may be provided by remote carriers. We incorporate here our response to comments to § 1053.1 regarding the need for special regulations related to these PUC certificated limousines.

 Subsection (a) has been edited to delete the duplicative term ''relating to'' which was a typographical error and the unnecessary term ''a certificate holder providing service as.'' Remote carrier service is defined by the regulations and direct reference to this classification is clearer without the deleted language. Subsection (b) has been edited to delete the words ''limousine,'' which appeared in this sentence twice in the proposed regulations, in order to make the scope of a partial rights service provider consistent with the changes made to § 1053.1(b)(2).

 IRRC noted the suggestion of a commentator that the regulation of remote carriers violates the federal ''RIDE ACT.'' However, the citation provided by IRRC and the commentator contains a specific requirement that the service provider meet ''all applicable vehicle and intrastate passenger licensing requirements of the State or States in which the motor carrier is domiciled or registered to do business,'' which we believe includes these regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 14501(d)(1)(B). If the commentator's line of reasoning were upheld, no state could regulate limousine service related to airports, which is a position unsupported by any law known to the Authority.

§ 1053.43. Certain limousine requirements.

 Section 1053.43 was created to provide a special form of registration for remote carriers and large vehicles. While these service providers are within the definition of limousine as provided in section 5701 of the act, remote carriers have very little contact with Philadelphia and large vehicles are not commonly considered to be limousines by the public. Subsection (a) identifies the purpose of this section. IRRC commented that subsection (a) did not clearly state which types of limousines were intended to be addressed by this section. Therefore, this subsection has been amended to specifically reference subsection (b) which identifies remote carriers and large vehicles as the focus of this section. Both remote carriers and large vehicles have been a component of the Authority's regulation of limousines in Philadelphia since 2005, no new type of service provider has been created. We incorporate our response provided in § 1053.1.

 (b). Certain limousines covered. This subsection has been amended to clarify that this section applies to both remote carriers and larger vehicles as provided in 1053.41(b). We believe this amendment will address IRRC's comment which noted that § 1053.41(b) which applies to large vehicles also referenced this section. This section now clearly identifies that it is applicable to the special classifications of limousines designated as either remote carriers or large vehicles. A sentence was also added to this section to clarify that vehicles that are both remote carriers and large vehicles need only comply with the large vehicle requirements. This will prevent potential confusion related to the need to adhere to two separate sets of requirements for such vehicles.

 (c). Registration. This subsection of the proposed regulation provided for the registration fee and renewal requirements applicable to remote carrier and large vehicles. The first sentence of subsection (c)(1) has been amended to delete the term ''certificate holder'' and replaced with ''person,'' which is a defined term. While we believe the subject of this requirement was clear from context and other sections of the regulations, we take this opportunity to add further clarity. We incorporate our response to subsection (e) and (f) below.

 (3). Subsection (c)(3) of the proposed form regulations provided for the registration fee applicable to remote carriers. The term registration is used when referencing remote carriers because certification by the Authority is not required to provide remote carrier service (nor large vehicle service) because of the unique type of service provided by these carriers as identified in response to comments to § 1053.1(b)(3) and 1053.41. We have amended the language of subsection (c)(3) which was intended to address the registration costs of remote carriers in the event this final-form regulation became effective before the 2012 fiscal year. Because this regulation will become effective in the 2012 fiscal year and the Authority's 2012 fee schedule addresses remote carrier fees, the language of proposed subsection (c) is no longer necessary. However, the Authority's 2012 fee schedule does not provide for the registration costs of large vehicles. Therefore, a one-time $15 fee is provided in subsection (c)(3) for large vehicle registrants. The fee is not based on the number of large vehicles registered and will be replaced by the provisions of the Authority's subsequent fee schedules. This large vehicle registration policy will bring the Authority's regulations in line with those of the PUC and avoid a potential conflict with federal statutes referenced in our response to § 1053.41. See PUC order dated August 13, 1998 at 28 Pa.B. 4583 (September 5, 1998).

 (4). Subsection (c)(4) of the proposed regulations related to the expiration of remote carrier registrations and simply provides that this registration will expire contemporaneously with Philadelphia limousine certificates and require an annual renewal filing with the Authority. The presence of the annually issued Authority remote carrier sticker (issued upon registration) on these vehicles will assist our Inspectors in ascertaining the legality of a PUC certificated limousine's presence at an airport, rail road station or hotel in Philadelphia.

 IRRC questioned the similarity between the term ''continued registration'' used in this section and the term ''renewal'' in § 1051.3. We agree with IRRC that this annual process is similar to the renewal process of § 1051.3, which is applicable to holders of certificates of public convenience issued by the Authority; however, it is not the same. A commentator sought clarity on the scope of a remote carrier's rights. A remote carrier holds rights that have a very tenuous connection to Philadelphia and no intra-Philadelphia service rights at all, yet this narrow classification of service is within the Authority's jurisdiction under the act as noted in our response to comments to § 1053.1, which we incorporate here. Also, remote carriers and large vehicles are not subject to any other provisions of Subpart C, except as provided in this subchapter. Therefore, we believe that this distinctive and streamlined manner of annually renewing remote carrier rights will adequately protect the public interest, not burden these carriers who have no other connection to Philadelphia, and be easily understood.

 IRRC also questioned the registration deadline of ''on or before February 15 of each year'' provided in this paragraph. We agree with IRRC's comment and have amended this subsection to be consistent with the April 1 filing date in § 1051.3. We have also amended this paragraph to clarify that it relates to remote carriers by adding the term ''remote carrier'' in the place of the phrase ''limousine subject to this section.''

 (d). Regulation. Subsection (d) provides that vehicles regulated pursuant to this section will be subject to Authority enforcement actions related to vehicle condition and inspection requirements as provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. While this chapter provides a significant amount of freedom from regulatory interaction between these unique carriers and the Authority, we will not cede our obligation to make certain that these vehicles continuously meet the basic safety requirements established by the Commonwealth. A commentator questioned the application of the Authority mileage and age requirements, driver training requirements and regulatory vehicle inspection requirements. Those specific requirements are not identified in this chapter of the final-form regulations; therefore; they will not apply to remote carriers or large vehicles.

 (2). Subsection (d)(2) provides that remote carriers and large vehicles must comply with field inspection requirements of the Authority. IRRC and a commentator questioned the use of the term ''Authority staff'' when referencing who may initiate a field inspection. We agree with these comments and have deleted that term. This section now provides that Inspectors may initiate field inspections. As provided in the definition of ''Inspector,'' all Inspectors will carry identification and have been issued a badge. We decline one commentator's suggestion to specify the different forms of training that has been provided to these Inspectors as that training will change from time-to-time.

 (3). Subsection (d)(3) provides that the remote carriers and large vehicles are exempt from adhering to Authority regulations, except as provided in this chapter, and must adhere to PUC regulations.

 IRRC question how the Authority has jurisdiction over these carriers if they are following PUC regulations and orders. The Authority has jurisdiction pursuant to the definition of ''limousine service'' in section 5701 of the act. Through these regulations we have required these carriers to follow PUC regulations and orders while operating in Philadelphia. Because the PUC cannot regulate this service in Philadelphia and because we seek to implement the least burdensome, yet effective, regulations related to this unique service, we have simply permitted the expansion of the reach of the PUC's regulations and orders through this section. We will enforce these regulations because we are in Philadelphia and the PUC has had a very limited footprint here since 2005. We do not believe that directing these carriers to adhere to the PUC's regulations divests the Authority of jurisdiction any more than requiring adherence to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's vehicle equipment and inspection requirements.

 IRRC questioned the need for these carriers to register with the Authority and display an Authority sticker, when they already have documentation from the PUC. While the certificate holder of a large vehicle(s) will be required to register one time with the Authority, there will be no stickers issued to these service providers nor annual fee or renewal obligation. In any event, because remote carriers and large vehicles are within the Authority's jurisdiction when providing service within Philadelphia it is necessary that we provide regulatory guidance to these carriers in relation to that service.

 The Authority's inspectors regularly patrol Philadelphia's airports, train stations and hotels. Because the vast amount of regulated service at these locations is provided by taxicabs, airport shuttles and traditional sedan-type limousines, those are the key areas of the inspectors' attention. If a limousine is observed initiating a service trip from one of those locations it must be authorized by the Authority to do so. An Authority sticker in the bottom portion of the passenger side windshield advises the Authority's inspectors that the vehicle is so authorized and is not an illegal service provider. That notice will save both the Authority and the limousine certificate holder time associated with a vehicle stop and document inspection. By requiring the annual registration of remote carriers the Authority will maintain accurate information on the number of limousine service providers in Philadelphia and be more capable of responding to complaints related to that carrier. By requiring the one time registration of large vehicle certificate holders, the Authority will simply continue the practice employed by the PUC elsewhere in the Commonwealth, but now outside its jurisdiction in Philadelphia by virtue of the act.

 (e). Insurance. Subsection (e) provides that each person registered pursuant to this section must comply with the Authority's insurance requirements, provided that those requirements do not exceed those of the PUC. This subsection has been amended to delete reference to § 1053.41, because that section does not include a registration process. The term ''certificate holder'' has been deleted and replaced with the term ''person'' which is more applicable to the PUC carrier that first seeks Authority rights through this section, as well as those who are granted those rights and then seek to renew them. We believe this change will increase clarity.

 (f). Remote carrier sticker and certificate. Subsection (f) in the proposed form regulation was titled ''Alternative carrier sticker.'' Because special stickers will be issued to remote carriers, but not large vehicles we have amended the title of this subsection and the language of the regulation by renaming this sticker a ''remote carrier sticker.'' We believe this minor change will eliminate any confusion related to a large vehicle's need to display an Authority registration sticker. We have also added language related to the issuance of a certificate of public convenience in order to be consistent with our response to comments to § 1053.1(b)(3), which we incorporate here, and a concern of IRRC related to the issuance of authorization to conduct this type of service without a certificate. Subsection (f)(3) has been deleted as unnecessary.

 (g). Large vehicle certificate. Consistent with our response to comments to 1053.41(a), we have added subsection (g) to provide for the certification of large vehicles. This section provides for the certification of large vehicles upon compliance with this section and notes that the certificate may be revoked in the event the carrier's PUC certificate becomes invalid. There is no annual renewal requirement for large vehicles.

Chapter 1055. Vehicles and equipment requirements

Subchapter A. General provisions

§ 1055.1. Purpose.

 Section 1055.1 provides that the purpose of this chapter of the Limousine subpart of the regulations titled ''Vehicle and Equipment Standards'' is to provide guidance on the condition, type and inspection of vehicles used to provide limousine service. IRRC commented that the inclusion of subsection (b), which provides certain definitions, makes this section unclear and recommended separating the two provisions. We agree with IRRC's comment and have simply deleted subsection (a) as unnecessary given the clear meaning of the chapter based on its title. Therefore, this section has been amended by changing the title to ''Definitions'' and deleting subsection (a) in its entirety. As a result of that deletion there is no longer a need for subsections in this section.

 IRRC raised the same comment in regard to this section as it did in § 1017.1 regarding the term ''antique vehicle.'' We incorporate our response provided in § 1017.1 here. IRRC also questioned the definition of ''compliance inspection'' and questioned why emissions testing will not be required for limousines. The term ''compliance inspection'' relates to the Authority's inspection of a vehicle to assure compliance with the act and the regulations. The term ''state inspection'' includes an emissions test through its reference to 75 Pa.C.S. Chapter 47. Each of these terms is separately defined in this section. The Authority is not authorized to waive a vehicle's obligation to obtain an emissions sticker at the time of a state inspection. In the event the Authority conducts a state inspection and the vehicle passes that inspection, an emission sticker will be issued by the Authority unless a regulation of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation or statue provide otherwise.

§ 1055.2. Limousine rights sticker.

 Section 1055.22 provides that a limousine may not provide limousine service in Philadelphia without an attached limousine rights sticker, issued by the Authority.

§ 1055.3. Limousine age and mileage parameters.

 Section 1055.3 provides for limitations on the age and mileage of a vehicle introduced for limousine service and a mandated age and mileage for removal from active limousine service. All of the age and mileage requirements of this section are currently in place in Philadelphia. Entry level and exit level age and mileage restrictions have been in place since 2005. This regulation will result in no change to the manner in which limousine certificate holders acquire and retire vehicles for limousine service and, therefore, will have a neutral fiscal impact upon those carriers.

 (a). Method of age computation. Subsection (a) provides the formula for determining a vehicle's age. We amended this subsection in the final form regulations to follow the calendar year, as opposed to an October 1 through September 30 year. We believe this will be easier for the industry to follow and that it will be consistent with PUC standards for calculating the age of a vehicle. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.314(d) (relating to vehicle and equipment requirements). The example provided in this subsection has been deleted and moved to subsection (b), which actually established the age requirements to taxicabs.

 (b) Age. Subsection (b) provides that a limousine must be removed from service upon reaching the age of 8 years, except for special authorization for antique vehicles. IRRC questioned the Authority's power to create this age ceiling. This same issue was raised in regard to taxicabs in §§ 1011.3 and 1011.4. We incorporate our response to those sections in regard to our obligation under the act to develop ''a clean, safe, reliable and well regulated taxicab and limousine industry'' in Philadelphia and the general deterioration of vehicles as they reach 8 years of age and reach mileage milestones. See 53 Pa.C.S. § 5701.1(2). We have replaced the sentence establishing the maximum age of a limousine with the same language used in § 1017.4 relating to taxicab mileage and section 5714(a) of the act. The change in language provides clarity and consistence between the age ceilings of subpart B and subpart C. We incorporate our response to comments in § 1017.4 regarding the manner in which to calculate a vehicle's age.

 We believe that the inability to regulate the type and condition of vehicles used to provide limousine service would needlessly and unreasonably restrict our ability to fulfill our legislative mandate. We note that the PUC has also created an eight year ceiling for vehicles used to provide limousine service within its jurisdiction. See 52 Pa. Code § 29.333(e). While the Authority is given a broad and weighty direction in terms of its obligations to improve limousine service in Philadelphia, there is no statutory restriction from addressing the age or mileage of vehicles used to do so, nor is there a right provided to regulated parties to use a particular vehicle for a given number of years or miles. It has been our experience that many limousine certificate holders operate without consideration of the age or mileage limitations of this section because they wish to maintain a fleet of the high quality vehicles the public anticipates when limousine service is ordered. They achieve this goal by circulating new or newer, vehicles into their fleet and then remove those vehicles that have reached a high age or mileage, a mark subjectively set below the limits mandated by the Authority.

 The vehicle age ceiling continued through subsection (b) has been in place in Philadelphia since 2005 and has assisted the Authority in improving the quality of vehicles offered for limousine service by many carriers. While limousines endure less daily wear and tear than taxicabs, our experience since 2005 has been that over an eight year period or after operating 350,000 mile or more, or both, these vehicles are not capable of providing the quality of service we have been directed to ensure in Philadelphia.

 The current age and mileage limits arose after public comment hearings were conducted and many meetings were held with regulated parties and interests groups. In fact, the entry level age and overall mileage restrictions currently in place in Philadelphia, and continued through these final-form regulations, were specifically agreed to by the Philadelphia Regional Limousine Association after several protracted sessions related to regulatory issues in the Philadelphia market. We also note that there were no negative comments submitted in regard to the maximum vehicle age restriction.

 (c). Mileage. Subsection (c) establishes mileage restrictions related to vehicles used, or intended for use, as limousines. All of the mileage requirements of this subsection are currently in place in Philadelphia. This subsection will result in no change to the manner in which limousine certificate holders acquire and retire vehicles for limousine service and, therefore, will have a neutral fiscal impact upon those carriers. We incorporate our response to comments in subsection (b) above as to the Authority's power to implement vehicle mileage restrictions.

 (1). Subsection (c)(1) provides that a vehicle first submitted for service as a limousine in Philadelphia may not have more than 51,000 miles registered on its odometer. An exception is made for a newer vehicle, those with a model year age of 5 or less, which permits entry into limousine service with up to 75,000 miles upon successful completion of a compliance inspection. Again, this entry level mileage restriction is already in place in Philadelphia. While we note that a representative of the Philadelphia Regional Limousine Association (PRLA) commented that there should be more mileage considerations in the final-form regulations, we note that the PRLA specifically agreed to the exact language used in this section, which can be found in the Authority's locally promulgated regulations at 13 PPA Regs. §d. ii.

 (2). Subsection (c)(2) provides that except for an exception provided in subsection (c)(3), vehicles used to provide limousine service must be retired upon reaching 350,000. A commentator involved in providing limousine service suggested that mileage should not be a factor in the Authority's analysis of the quality and condition of limousines, and that the only factor should be the successful completion of a safety inspection. We disagree and offer this comment as an example of why bright line quality parameters are necessary in order to assure a high level of service is provided in the limousine industry. Passing a safety test is the minimum goal a common carrier should seek to obtain. A safety test will not gauge the quality of a vehicle's ride, the condition of the vehicles interior, or the operation of the accoutrements that set limousine service apart from taxicab or bus services. Those distinguishing characteristics wear out with usage and do not provide the high quality presentation or operation the public reasonably expects from a limousine service provider.

 (3). Subsection (c)(3) permits a limousine owner to continue to use a vehicle that has reached the 350,000 mile mark, provided the vehicle has a model year age of 5 or less and the certificate holder files a waiver petition seeking continued service. Upon passing a compliance inspection the vehicle will be permitted to continue in service for 1 year.

 The requirements of this subsection are a replication of the Authority's locally promulgated regulation at 13 PPA Regs. §d. ii., and have been in place in Philadelphia as an exception to the 350,000 mile ceiling of subsection (2) since 2007. A commentator seemed to have misread this section as reducing the maximum age of a limousine to 5 years, which it does not. However, we believe the regulation is clear as to its purpose and that we have thoroughly explained it here.

 The final-form regulation eliminates the need to file a waiver petition, which is a formal process that can be dispensed within these inspection cases. That change will save regulated parties both the time and cost of filing a waiver petition. In order to obtain this service extension, the limousine certificate holder can simply request that the Enforcement Manager direct a compliance inspection of the vehicle prior to the date it reaches 350,000 miles or upon reaching that mark. The final form regulation also permits the extended period of service to run from the date the vehicle passes the compliance inspection, as opposed to the date it reached the 350,000 mark. This exception is intended to address lower aged vehicles that are used largely for longer trips. Those longer trips accrue more mileage on the vehicle without exposing it to the wear and tear of frequent stops, urban travel and passenger changes.

 (d). Subsection (d) of the proposed regulation provided for an imputed vehicle mileage formula to be used in situations where the odometer of a vehicle used to provide limousine service has malfunctioned or is unreliable. The imputed mileage was set at 3,333 miles per month. An imputed mileage calculation is necessary because certificate holders have intentionally disconnected odometers or failed to repair malfunctioning odometers in order to conceal the vehicle's true mileage. Some certificate holders or drivers, or both, have been found to manipulate odometers to increase a vehicle's value or permit it to continue in service in Philadelphia beyond maximum mileage limitations. Therefore, a mechanism to address these situations is necessary to provide an alternative to the prohibition of vehicles with unreliable or malfunctioning odometer readings.

 IRRC questioned the basis for the imputed mileage calculation. We agree that because the specific imputed mileage figure expressed in the proposed regulation was based on the average monthly mileage of taxicabs in Philadelphia this section must be adjusted. The average mileage accrued by taxicabs is much easier to estimate than limousine service, because while taxicabs provide an almost exclusively local service, some limousines specialize in providing transportation over long distances. Therefore, paragraph (1) now provides that when a vehicle is inspected by the Authority and found to have a malfunctioning meter or an unreliable odometer reading, a monthly imputed mileage will be assigned to that vehicle based on the criteria provided in paragraph (2). To the extent a certificate holder disagrees with the assignment of imputed mileage to its vehicle, the certificate holder may request a review of the decision pursuant to § 1005.24.

 (2). Paragraph (2) provides for the method by which an imputed mileage calculation will be made. An imputed monthly mileage will be assigned to the vehicle for each month from the date of the last reliable odometer reading through the date the vehicle presents to the Authority. The imputed mileage will be determined by averaging the two most recent state inspection or compliance inspection odometer readings, or a combination of the two, for the subject vehicle and dividing that sum by 24, the quotient will be the imputed monthly mileage. We believe this method of determining a vehicle's true odometer reading will produce a more accurate mileage estimate based on the vehicle's historical use.

 (3). Paragraph (3) provides that except as otherwise permitted by the Authority, a vehicle with a malfunctioning odometer or an unreliable odometer reading may not provide limousine service if a reliable baseline for a vehicle's mileage cannot be ascertained. While this circumstance is unlikely to occur, it is possible that a vehicle's inspection history may be lost or be otherwise unavailable. The combination of the unavailability of a vehicle's mileage history and a malfunctioning odometer raise legitimate concerns about a vehicle's fitness to serve the public. A certificate holder may identify legitimate reasons for the lack of reliable odometer readings and obtain relief from the prohibition of this paragraph in the discretion of the Manager of Enforcement.

 (f). Penalties. Subsection (f) of the proposed regulations provided for specific penalties related to odometer manipulation. Commentators questioned the propriety of including penalties of this nature in the regulations. 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.

§ 1055.4. Basic vehicle standards.

 (a). State vehicle standards. Subsection (a) provides that limousines must be in continuous compliance with applicable Department of Transportation equipment inspection standards stated in 67 Pa. Code Chapter 175 (relating to vehicle equipment and inspection) when providing limousine service. IRRC commented that the term ''except where those standards are exceeded or otherwise altered by this subpart[.]'' was unclear. We agree with IRRC and have deleted that phrase, although we disagree with a commentator who suggested the Authority does not have the ability to set its own vehicle condition requirements and incorporate here our response to § 1017.3 (relating to taxicab age parameters).

 (b)(4). Subsection (b)(4) provides that a limousine must have four full sized tires that are in good repair. Because some larger limousines may use more than four tires, this subsection has been amended to require ''at least'' four tires.

 (b)(15). Subsection (b)(15) provides certain specific requirements related to the condition and presentment of limousines. Paragraph (15) provides that limousines must display postings to inform passengers of the manner in which to register limousine service related complaints. A typographical error was corrected by changing the word ''additions'' to ''addition.''

 One limousine operator commented that there was no place in a limousine to ''tastefully'' display these postings and that the users of limousines do expect to see notices in limousines, presumably because this is a higher classification of service than taxicabs. Another limousine operator commented that this limousine service is a ''luxury'' and that limousine passengers do not expect to see this type of notice. We agree with the view of these commentators that limousine service is supposed to be a higher class of service with more refinements and comforts than taxicab service. We note that the view of limousine service expressed by these commentators tends to support the purpose of § 1055.3 related to the need to prohibit old or high mileage vehicles from limousine service. We have amended this paragraph in the final-form regulation to permit a different method of notifying limousine passengers of the manner in which they may file limousine service related complaint with the Authority. For example, a limousine certificate holder may request the approval of the Director to provide this notice as part of its standard reservation process or as part of its service receipt process.

 IRRC noted a typographical error in this paragraph in which ''posting'' needed to be corrected to ''postings.'' That correction has been made.

 (16). Subsection (b)(16) provides that the Authority may require a limousine certificate holder to install a separate heating or cooling system in a vehicle that has been stretched to increase seating capacity. Paragraph (16) has been deleted as superfluous because the requirement of Subsection (b)(12) to maintain certain temperatures does not create an exception for these vehicles.

 (c). Interstate drivers. Subsection (c) makes clear that the requirements of Subpart B of the regulations is not intended to impermissibly conflict with the Real Interstate Drivers Equity Act of 2002. IRRC questioned the use of the term ''subpart'' when this subsection is a component of a section. The intent of the regulation is to cover the entire subpart because not all of this subpart's requirements related to limousine drivers are located in § 1055.4. IRRC also questioned the placement of this subsection in this section, particularly in consideration of its presence in proposed § 1057.12 (final-form § 1057.11). We agree with IRRC's comment and have deleted this subsection. That deletion has required the reidentification of the succeeding subsections of this section.

 (e). Advertising prohibited. Subsection (e) prohibits advertising in or on limousines. IRRC requested an explanation for this prohibition. A limousine commentator who objected to the complaint notice posting of (b)(15) commented that limousines should be able to advertise on the exterior of a limousine. That commentator also sought guidance on the availability of newspapers in limousines, because those papers contain advertisements. As noted in several places in this response, including in our response to comments to subsection (b)(15), limousine service is intended to be a higher class of service. The placement of random advertisements for any range of products or services on limousines is inconsistent with the purpose of requiring a higher level of transportation service. However, we do not discount the potential for tasteful advertising in limited circumstances and have amended this section to permit advertisement upon approval of the Authority. A certificate holder may seek such approval through request to the Director, who will conduct a review of the request and make a determination consistent with the intent of the act and this subpart.

 As noted above, this subsection has been reidentified as subsection (d).

 (f). Inspection by certificate holder. Subsection (f) requires a certificate holder to inspect its limousines on a daily basis. IRRC questioned this requirement in light of its similar comment to § 1017.5. Preliminarily, we note that the leasing of limousines to drivers is much less frequent in the limousine industry than the taxicab industry. Where there are no taxicab drivers that are employed by a taxicab certificate holder, most limousine certificate holders employ their drivers. Therefore, the ability of the certificate holder to access each limousine on a daily basis is much less challenging for limousine certificate holders.

 However, we agree with IRRC's concern that even the certificate holder with the highest standards of service may be precluded from daily inspections of limousines that are subject to a lease agreement. We accept IRRC's suggestion to grant the certificate holder the discretion to select another person to conduct these inspections on the certificate holder's behalf, without absolving the certificate holder of the obligation to assure that its limousines continually comply with these regulations.

 As noted above, this subsection has been reidentified as subsection (e).

§ 1055.5. Required documents.

 Section 1055.5 requires limousines to continually contain certain documents when providing limousine service. An extraneous period which appeared as a typographical error in the proposed form regulation at the end of subsection (a) has been deleted.

 (3). Paragraph (3) requires the presence of a current trip sheet in a limousine. A commentator questioned the ability to use electronic trip sheets. Because many limousine certificate holders use electronic documents of this nature, this section does not require a paper trip sheet. Indeed, compliant electronic trip sheets have been in use in Philadelphia for many years and been accepted by the Authority and we will continue to do so.

§ 1055.6. Transportation of blind or deaf persons with dog guides.

 Section 1055.6 provides that limousines must transport dogs trained for the purpose of guiding blind or deaf persons when accompanying blind or deaf persons paying a regular fare, and further provides that the guide dogs must be properly leashed and may not occupy a seat.

Subchapter B. Limousine inspections

§ 1055.11. Scheduled compliance inspections.

 Section 1055.11 provides that the Authority may direct that up to 25% of each certificate holder's limousines registered with the Authority submit to a scheduled compliance inspection on an annual basis. This exact limousine inspection process is currently in place in Philadelphia and has been the process followed since 2005.

 IRRC questioned how the Authority developed the 25% number. Our experience has been that limousines are generally better maintained and received less wear and tear than taxicabs; therefore, we have dedicated a disproportionate amount of rather limited resources to focusing on bi-annual inspections of taxicabs. Through discussions with limousine certificate holders and representatives, including the Philadelphia Regional Limousine Association, the Authority determined that a random inspection of up to 25% of a limousine certificate holder's fleet will assure compliance with the act and these regulations.

 IRRC noted the question of a commentator related to the application of this inspection process on remote carriers. Vehicles used to provide remote carrier type service in Philadelphia are not currently subject to inspection by the Authority and that procedure will be continued in the final-form regulations. Our regulations at § 1053.43(d)(3) specifically identify what regulations must be followed by remote carriers and this inspection requirement is not one of them. Again, remote carriers are PUC certificated carriers that have no rights to provide service within Philadelphia.

§ 1055.12. Offsite inspections.

 Section 1055.12 provides for the inspection of limousines by the Authority at locations other than Authority facilities. There were no comments directly to this section.

§ 1055.13. Failure to appear for scheduled inspection.

 Section 1055.13 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 the rescheduling fee referenced in this section. 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 a formal complaint. A commentator suggested that a certificate holder's assertion that a vehicle is needed for limousine service should be a per se excuse to fail to appear at a scheduled compliance inspection is not reasonable. One of the reasons that limousine certificate holders have advocated for the 25% cap provided in § 1053.11 is to permit the certificate holder the flexibility to address exactly these issues.

§ 1055.14. Field inspections.

 Section 1055.14 provides for field inspection of limousines by the Authority Inspectors. There were no comments directly to this section.

§ 1055.15. Failure to submit to field inspection.

 Section 1055.15 provides for actions in response to the failure of a limousine driver (or owner) to yield to a direction to submit to an Authority field inspection of a limousine. 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. Commentators questioned the propriety of including penalties of this nature in the regulations, including specific reference to impoundment. Reference to impoundment of a limousine has been removed from subsection (b), section 5741(f) and §§ 1055.31 and 1055.32 if the final-form regulations adequately address this issue. Because we believe the penalty provisions of § 1001.61 will suffice to provide notice of certain penalties and have removed subsection (c) from this section of the final-form regulations.

§ 1055.16. Reinspection.

 Section 1055.16 provides that in the event a limousine fails any Authority inspection or is removed from limousine service by the Authority for any reason, the limousine must successfully complete a compliance inspection. A commentator suggested that this inspection was unnecessary and should be free. We disagree. We believe that a limousine that has already failed an inspection or has been removed from service by the Authority should pass a compliance inspection in order to assure that the vehicle is then in compliance with the act and the regulations before reinitiating limousine service. Fees associated with inspections will be established pursuant to 5707(b) of the act (relating to budget and fees). However, we believe that a fee to cover the Authority's costs associated multiple inspections of the same vehicle is reasonable.

§ 1055.17. Removal of vehicle and change of license plate.

 Section 1055.17 requires a limousine certificate owner to report the removal of a vehicle from limousine service within 48 hours. Notice should be by email.

§ 1055.18. Attendance at scheduled inspection.

 Section 1055.18 requires the certificate holder or its attorney in fact (an agent) to be present when the certificate holder's limousine appears for inspection by the Authority. The inspection of limousines is one of the most crucial tools the Authority has to assure clean, safe and reliable service, particularly given the advanced age of the limousine 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 and statutory authority to require 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. This rapid decision making process avoids an out-of-service designation and requires the prompt participation of the certificate holder, directly or through an agent.

 The ability to use an agent gives the certificate holder the option to appear 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 limousine service. Again, this procedure has been in place in Philadelphia since 2005 and has been a crucial tool in the Authority's implementation of its legislative mandate to provide for a ''clean, safe, reliable and well regulated'' limousine industry in Philadelphia. See 53 Pa.C.S 5701.1(2).

§ 1055.19. Prerequisites to inspection.

 (a). Subsection (a) provides that the Authority will not initiate the inspection of a vehicle that is out of compliance with the act or these regulations. For example, a limousine that presents for inspection with a model year age of 10, without a waiver authorizing service in such condition, will not be inspected.

 (b). Subsection (b) provides that the Authority will not initiate the inspection of a vehicle owned by a certificate holder that is out of compliance with the act or these regulations. For example, a vehicle owned by a certificate holder who has failed to pay a renewal fee or is in contempt of an Authority order will not be inspected. Reference to the title of § 1051.6 has been changed to mirror changes to that section.

 (c). Subsection (c) provides that vehicles presented for inspection and found to be ineligible for inspection for a reason provided in subsection (a) or (b) will be placed out of service pursuant to the process provided in § 1003.32.

 We believe these prerequisites for inspection are straightforward and easy to understand.

§ 1055.20. Approved models and conditions.

 Section 1055.20 provides that the Authority will maintain a list of makes and models of vehicles that may be used to provide limousine 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 and have made those changes.

§ 1055.21. Reconstructed vehicles prohibited.

 Section 1055.21 provides that salvaged or reconstructed vehicles may not provide limousine service.

Subchapter C. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment

§ 1055.31. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment.

 Section 1055.31 of the proposed regulations provided for the impoundment of vehicles and equipment used to provide common carrier service in Philadelphia. In the proposed regulations this section adopted the impoundment related procedures provided in §§ 1017.51 and 1017.52 which is found in Part B of the regulations relating to taxicabs.

 IRRC noted that § 1017.52 references section 5714(g) of the act which is found in the Subchapter of Chapter 57 which deals with taxicabs and that the mere incorporation of the procedure of §§ 1017.51 and 1017.52 into the limousine part of the regulations was improper. We agree with IRRC's comment and have amended Subchapter C, which previously included only § 1055.31, to include an additional section § 1055.32. The language used in Subchapter C is identical to that of §§ 1017.51 and 1017.52, except that it references limousine service and section 5741(f) of the act, which deals with the Authority's impoundment powers related to limousines in language that is nearly identical language to the taxicab impoundment language of section 5714(g) of the act. The title of § 1055.31 has been amended to ''General'' and it includes several definitions applicable to the impoundment process. The new § 1055.32 has adopted the title of former 1055.31 and contains the same procedures and safeguards related to impoundment as provided in § 1017.52.

§ 1055.32. Impoundment of vehicles and equipment.

 Section 1055.32 provides for procedures and safe guards related to the impoundment of limousines and equipment used to provide limousine service. We incorporate here our comments to § 1055.31.

[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.

---