§ 41.14. Evidentiary criteria used to decide motor common carrier applicationsstatement of policy.
An applicant seeking motor common carrier authority has the burden of demonstrating that it possesses the technical and financial ability to provide the proposed service. In addition, authority may be withheld if the record demonstrates that the applicant lacks a propensity to operate safely and legally. In evaluating whether a motor carrier applicant can satisfy these fitness standards, the Commission will ordinarily examine the following factors, when applicable:
(1) Whether an applicant has sufficient capital, equipment, facilities and other resources necessary to serve the territory requested.
(2) Whether an applicant and its employees have sufficient technical expertise and experience to serve the territory requested.
(3) Whether an applicant has or is able to secure sufficient and continuous insurance coverage for all vehicles to be used or useful in the provision of service to the public.
(4) Whether the applicant has an appropriate plan to comply with the Commissions driver and vehicle safety regulations and service standards in Chapter 29 (relating to motor carriers of passengers).
(5) An applicants record, if any, of compliance with 66 Pa.C.S. (relating to Public Utility Code), this title and the Commissions orders.
(6) Whether an applicant or its drivers have been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude and remains subject to supervision by a court or correctional institution.
The provisions of this § 41.14 adopted November 19, 1982, effective January 1, 1983, 12 Pa.B. 4282; amended May 4, 2001, effective May 5, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 2385; amended July 23, 2004, effective July 24, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 3912; amended February 9, 2018, effective February 10, 2018, 48 Pa.B. 882. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (337331) to (337332).
Notes of Decisions
Motor common carrier applicants need not show inadequacy in the existing service and protestants assume the burden of showing that the entry of a new carrier endangers the existing carriers operation, thus rendering the grant of the application contrary to public policy. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 512 A.2d 1359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
While denying transfer of a certificate of public convenience on the grounds of profiteering and trafficing, the Commission exceeded its authority by applying criteria not specifically provided for by regulation. South Hills Movers, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 601 A.2d 1308 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).
The Commission did not exceed its authority in reformulating evidentiary criteria under this section, since the requirement of proving inadequacy of existing service was not statutory but had arisen in a regulatory context. Yellow Cab Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 524 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
On an application for additional transportation authority, the Commission properly considered the applicants unauthorized service as proof of public need where the service was based on a good faith misunderstanding of the scope of its certificate and the revenues generated thereby may be considered in determining the applicants financial fitness. W. C. McQuaide, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 585 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).
The Commissions regulations promulgating evidentiary criteria are applicable to passenger carrier applications. Yellow Cab Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 524 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Although the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission admonished the taxicab company for its unauthorized operations and the irregularities in its past annual reports, the Commission accepted the evidence presented by the company as credible and determined that the company was likely to comply with the regulation in the future. Thus, the Commissions finding that the company possessed the propensity to operate legally was based upon its credibility determinations and should not be disturbed on appeal. Loma, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 682 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); appeal denied 698 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1992).
Although the primary shareholder of the corporation filing an application for common carrier had some previous legal problems, these incidents were not sufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil and thereby deny common carrier status for these incidents failed to show that the corporation lacked the ability to operate safely and legally. Yellow Cab Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 673 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Public Utility Commission erred in concluding that testimony of witness, even if credible, was not sufficiently definite to serve as basis for finding that applicant assaulted witness. Limelight Limousine, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 580 A.2d 472 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
Evidence of record supported Commissions finding that application for Certificate of Public Convenience satisfied the Commissions established criteria and standard. Limelight Limousine, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 570 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
Court may not make independent judgment and substitute the Commissions findings under the evidentiary criteria promulgated by the Commission, where the findings are adequately supported by the evidence. Yellow Cab Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 524 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Prior Unlawful Operations
It is well established that a motor carrier authority applicants prior unlawful operations do not preclude the Commission from granting authority in a subsequent proceeding. Loma, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 682 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
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 Code 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.