IV. DISCUSSION

The requirements set forth in the Public Utilities Code for the operation of a charter-party business, as well as the rules which we have promulgated to implement those requirements, go in large part to the question of public safety. Moreover, we are concerned that this carrier continues to engage drivers without ensuring that they are validly licensed and tested for controlled substances. We are also concerned that the alleged violations of statutes and regulations documented by Staff have jeopardized public safety, and they could also demonstrate this carrier's lack of fitness to continue to conduct the transportation services for which he has obtained Commission authority.

In App. of Walter Hoffman ((1976) 80 Cal. P.U.C. 117) we said:

"...'reasonable fitness' connotes more than mere adequacy or sufficiency in training, competency, or adaptability to the appropriate technical and vocational aspects of the service to be rendered. It also includes an element of moral trustworthiness, reliance, and dependability. The standards must be based on the interests of the public and distinguished from the interests of the applicant, and the burden rests with the applicant to demonstrate that he is reasonably fit to be entrusted with a renewal of Commission authority."

After the issuance of a charter-party carrier permit, the Commission exercises continuing oversight of the carrier's fitness to operate. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 5381, the Commission has prescribed rules to ensure the safe operating performance of charter-party carriers and is authorized, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 5378, at any time for good cause to cancel, suspend, or revoke a permit or certificate. Good cause in Pub. Util. Code Section 5378(a),(1),(2) and (3) constitutes a failure to comply with the provisions of the Charter-Party Carriers' Act. A criminal act under the "Act" may also constitute good cause for revocation.

Therefore, we believe that Ultimate Limousine (PSG-11646-P) and Andy's Limousine (PSG-16218-B), and their officers, Andrew Richard Wagner (President) and Dannette Wagner (Vice-president), should appear and show cause why their operating authority should not be suspended or revoked. Good cause appearing, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. An investigation on the Commission's own motion is hereby instituted into the operations and practices of Andy's Ultimate Limousines, Inc., a California Corporation, dba The Ultimate Limousine (Ultimate Limousine), A.L.S., a California Corporation dba Andy's Limousine Service Transportation (Andy's Limousine), and their officers, Andrew Richard Wagner (President) and Dannette Wagner (Vice-President), Respondents.

2. If the Respondents request it within 30 days after receiving this order, a public evidentiary hearing on this matter shall be held before an assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at a time and date as scheduled at the prehearing conference. At the evidentiary hearing, the Respondents will have an opportunity to present evidence and may contest the staff's allegations that Ultimate Limousine and Andy's Limousine have:

a. Violated Pub. Util. Code §5379 by conducting passenger charter party operations after the suspension of its Class P Charter Party Permit (TCP 11646-P);

b. Violated Pub. Util. Code §§ 5379, 5391 and GO 115-F, by failing to procure and maintain on file adequate public liability and property damage insurance, as required by law of all carriers;

c. Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5374 and G.O. 157-C, Part 10, by failing to enroll 41 employee drivers in a Mandatory Alcohol and Controlled Substance Testing Certification Program, and by failing to conduct pre-employment alcohol and controlled substance tests;

d. Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5381, CVC Section 1808.1, and G.O. 157-C, Part 5.02, by failing to enroll 17 drivers in the Department of Motor Vehicles Pull Notice Program;

e. Violated G.O. 157-C, Part 5.01, and CVC Section 15250, by engaging 20 drivers that did not possess the proper California Driver License to drive carrier's vehicles with seating capacity greater than 10 passengers;

f. Violated Pub. Util. Code § G.O. 157-C, Part 4.01 by failing to report all vehicles in its for-hire operations (at least 4 vehicles with seating capacities of more than 15-passengers), and under-reporting the seating capacity of a fifth vehicle to the Commission;

g. Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5371 by operating at least 5 vehicles with seating capacities of more than 15-passengers, not authorized by its Charter-Party Permit issued pursuant to Section 5384(b);

h. Violated G.O. 157-C, Part 3.0, by failing to issue and maintain waybills showing all required information.

i. Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5385 and G.O. 157-C, Part 4.06 by failing to display their TCP number on at least five vehicles used in their for-hire operations.

j. Respondents should be fined up to $5,000 per violation of the Pub. Util. Code under Pub. Util. Code §§ 5378(b) and 5415.

k. Respondents are unfit to continue to conduct charter-party passenger transportation service and whether the charter-party carrier permit and certificate should be suspended or revoked pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5378(a).

3. A hearing shall be held for the Respondents to show cause why their operating authorities should not be suspended for a term to be established or revoked. Not later than ten days prior to this hearing, Respondents shall provide counsel for Staff and the assigned Administrative Law Judge with the prepared testimony that they intend to advance at the hearing. At the hearing, the assigned Commissioner or Assigned ALJ will also determine whether there is sufficient evidence to issue an ex parte ruling ordering the immediate suspension of Respondents' charter-party carrier authorities.

4. The Staff shall continue discovery and continue to investigate the operations of Respondents. Additional information about the Respondents' compliance after issuance of this order will be relevant on the issue of the likelihood to be compliant with statue and requirements that protect public safety. Additional information that Staff wishes to advance, as part of its direct showing in this proceeding, shall be provided to Respondents in advance of any hearings in accordance with the schedule directed by the Administrative Law Judge. Staff need only respond to discovery requests directed at Staff's investigation of the Respondents and Staff's prepared testimony offered in this proceeding.

5. Scoping Information: This ordering paragraph suffices for the "preliminary scoping memo" required by Rule 6 (c).

This enforcement proceeding is adjudicatory, and, absent settlement between staff and the respondent, will be set for evidentiary hearing. A hearing may also be held on any settlement for the purpose of enabling parties to justify that it is in the public interest or to answer questions from the ALJ about the settlement terms. A prehearing conference will be scheduled and held within 40 days and hearings will be held as soon as practicable thereafter in the Commission Los Angeles office. Objections to the OII may be filed but must be confined to jurisdictional issues, which could nullify any eventual Commission order on the merits of the issues about violations of statutes, rules, regulations or orders.

6. Respondents are hereby placed on notice that if staff's allegations are proven during the evidentiary hearing, the Commission may impose fines and penalties according to those authorized by law.

7. The Executive Director shall cause a copy of this order, the staff declarations and other related documents to be served by certified mail upon respondents, Andrew Richard Wagner, President Ultimate Limousine and Andy's Limousine at:

3131 Van Buren Blvd.

Riverside, CA 92503

909-687-1498

This order is effective today.

Dated July 8, 2004, in San Francisco, California

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President

CARL W. WOOD

LORETTA M. LYNCH

GEOFFREY F. BROWN

SUSAN P. KENNEDY

Commissioners