PENNSYLVANIA

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265

Public Meeting held February 10, 2000

Commissioners Present:

John M. Quain, Chairman

Robert K. Bloom, Vice Chairman

Nora Mead Brownell

Aaron Wilson, Jr.

Terrance J. Fitzpatrick

Application of Luxury Limousine Service, Inc., for the right to begin to transport, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, persons by limousine service between points in the Counties of Bucks, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, and between points in said counties and points in Pennsylvania and return
/ A-00115604
Application of Perry Camerlengo, Jr., for authority to begin to transport, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, persons upon call or demand in the Counties of Bucks, Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery, in Pennsylvania / A-00115605

OPINION AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

Before the Commission for consideration is a Petition for Reconsideration or Rescission (Petition) filed by Perry Camerlengo, Jr. (Mr. Camerlengo), on November30, 1999, and later served by the Office of the Secretary on December16, 1999. The Petition seeks reconsideration of our Final Order entered on September27, 1999, in Docket No.A00115605. Responses objecting to the Petition have been received from several, but not all, of the numerous parties who initially protested both of the subject Applications. We believe that the Petition is more properly (or additionally) in response to the Final Order entered on September 27, 1999, in Docket No.A00115604. Therefore, for the purposes of this Opinion and Order, we shall consolidate these two(2) proceedings pursuant to Section5.81 of our Regulations, 52Pa. Code§5.81.

History of the Proceeding

Docket No. A-00115604

On February 1, 1999, Luxury Limousine Service, Inc. (Luxury), filed an Application (Limo Application), for the right to begin to transport, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, persons by limousine service between points in the Counties of Bucks, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and between points in said Counties to points in Pennsylvania and return. Mr. Camerlengo signed the Limo Application. The Limo Application was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 20, 1999. Numerous Protests were received, and the Limo Application was assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judge (OALJ).

On September 2, 1999, an Initial Decision by Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) AllisonTurner was issued, recommending that the Limo Application be dismissed for a lack of prosecution (Turner Initial Decision). In the absence of participant objection or Commission action pursuant to Section 332(h) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §332(h), a Final Order was entered on September 27, 1999, adopting the Turner Initial Decision to deny the Application and close the file.

Docket No. A-00115605

On February 2, 1999, Mr. Camerlengo filed an Application in his own name (Call and Demand Application) for the right to begin to transport, as a common carrier, by motor vehicle, persons upon call or demand in the Counties of Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery, in Pennsylvania. The Call and Demand Application was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 20, 1999. Numerous Protests were received, and the Call and Demand Application was assigned to the OALJ.

A hearing was held on May 10, 1999, before ALJ CharlesE. Rainey, Jr. Mr. Camerlengo appeared and presented testimony. Numerous Protestants appeared through counsel but did not present any testimony. ALJ Rainey’s Initial Decision (Rainey Initial Decision) was issued on August 11, 1999, recommending that the Application be denied on the basis that Mr.Camerlengo failed to carry his burden of proof. In the absence of participant objection or Commission action pursuant to Section332(h), a Final Order was entered on September27, 1999, adopting the Rainey Initial Decision to deny the Application.

Discussion

As to the specific relief of reconsideration, rescission, or rehearing, the Public Utility Code establishes a party’s right to seek relief following the issuance of our final decisions pursuant to Subsections 703(f) and (g) of the Public Utility Code, 66Pa. C.S.§§703(f) and (g), relating to rehearing, rescission and amendment of orders. Such requests for relief must be consistent with Section 5.572(b) of our Regulations, 52Pa. Code§5.572(b), relating to petitions for relief following the issuance of a final decision. The standards for such petitions were addressed in Duickv. PG&W, 56 Pa. PUC 553 (1982) (Duick).

Duick held that a petition for rehearing under Subsection 703(f) of the Public Utility Code must allege newly-discovered evidence not discoverable through the exercise of due diligence prior to the close of the record. (Duick, p.558). A petition for reconsideration under Subsection 703(g), however, may properly raise any matter designed to convince us that we should exercise our discretion to amend or rescind a prior order, in whole or in part. Furthermore, such petitions are likely to succeed only when they raise “new and novel arguments” not previously heard or considerations which appear to have been overlooked or not addressed by us. (Duick, p.559). AT&Tv. Pa. PUC, 568A.2d1362 (Pa. Cmwlth Ct. 1990), further elucidated the standards for rehearing, reconsideration, revision, or rescission.

We note that attachments to the Petition do contain information new to these records. However, much of it was information which could have been produced during the discovery stages of these proceedings. Therefore, this new information does not appear to be independent grounds to reconsider our prior Final Orders.

Accordingly, under Duick, we shall deny the Petition and dismiss the Applications without prejudice to refile. We note that we waive the six(6)-month time provisions set forth in Section3.381 of our Regulations. We hasten to point out that corporations must be represented by counsel before this Commission. (52Pa. Code §§1.22-1.23).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing considerations, we shall deny the instant Petition and dismiss the Applications without prejudice; THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Perry Camerlengo, Jr., on November 30, 1999, is denied, consistent with this Opinion and Order.

2. That the Applications of Perry Camerlengo, Jr., and Luxury Limousine Service, Inc., are dismissed without prejudice.

BY THE COMMISSION,

James J. McNulty

Secretary

(SEAL)

ORDER ADOPTED: February 10, 2000

ORDER ENTERED:

5

175957v1