Regency Transportation Group, Ltd. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
44 A.3d 107
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Regency holds intrastate public utility and FMCSA interstate certificates to operate limousine services in PA and interstate charter/ special operations.
- Regency uses limousines for both intrastate and interstate passenger services; intrastate revenue-based PUC annual fee applies.
- UCR Act requires annual fee for interstate carriers, with notice that some non-UCR operations may be taxed.
- FY 2009-2010 assessment by the PUC was $20,170 based on Regency's intrastate revenues excluding group and party service over 16 seats.
- Regency objected, arguing federal preemption under UCR Act §14504a and FAAAA §14501(a)(1)(C); ALJ denied; Commission adopted modified decision.
- PA Commonwealth Court affirmed the PUC, holding limousine service not within charter-bus preemption and that amended UCR Act allows intrastate assessment up to intrastate-only carriers’ level; adequate notice given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCR Act and FAAAA preempt the assessment. | Regency argues preemption bars state assessment of interstate carriers. | PUC contends preemption limited to charter bus service; limousine not exempt. | Not preempted; limousine not charter bus. |
| Whether limousine service qualifies as charter bus transportation. | Regency asserts limousine fits charter bus under FAAAA. | Limousine does not meet 16+ seat charter-bus threshold. | Limousine not charter bus; preemption not triggered. |
| Effect of 2008 amendment to §14504a(c)(2) on state assessments. | Amendment precludes state taxation of intrastate operations. | Amendment permits intrastate assessment up to intrastate carrier level. | Amendment permits intrastate assessment; state could assess. |
| Whether Regency received proper notice of the repositioned assessment. | Regency lacked notice of changed assessment. | February 23, 2009 notice apprised carriers of new approach. | Notice sufficient; reliance on amended statute proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozak v. Hillsborough Pub. Transp. Comm., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (preemption scope for charter bus transportation under FAAAA)
- Kozak v. Hillsborough Pub. Transp. Comm., 644 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirmed district court on charter bus preemption limits)
- Alex's Transportation, Inc. v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Colo. 2000) (definition and scope of charter bus transportation)