Decision 00-02-002 February 3, 2000
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Xpress Management Systems LLC to provide on-call door-to-door passenger stage service to the extent required to enter into concessionaire agreement with Los Angeles World [sic] Airport (LAX). |
Application 98-09-001 (Filed September 2, 1998) |
Saman Behnam, Attorney at Law, and Roger Moradi
for Xpress Management Systems L.L.C., applicant.
Jerold L. Bloom, Attorney at Law, and M. Ebi Esule for United
Independent Shuttle; and Said M. Ahmed, for California
Dream Airport Shuttle; protestants.
John E. deBrauwere, Attorney at Law, for Rideshare Port
Management, LLC, interested party.
Cleveland Lee, Attorney at Law, and Moira H. Simmerson,
for Rail Safety and Carriers Division.
OPINION
This decision grants the application of Xpress Management Systems, LLC (Xpress or Applicant) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a passenger stage corporation (PSC) between Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura Counties and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).
2. Background
Xpress is a limited liability corporation comprised originally of five Commission PSCs: AAA Shuttle, PSC-4414; Apollo-Soyuz Airport Passenger Service, PSC-8402; Mehrdad Hajimoradi and Behram Shahab, dba L.A. Xpress Airport Shuttle, PSC-5038; Metro Shuttle, Inc., dba Best Shuttle, PSC-5858; and Coast Shuttle, Inc., PSC-1335.1 Each member's service territory is different and is specified in the member's PSC.
On September 2, 1998, Xpress filed an application seeking Commission authorization to provide service by each member consistent with the member's PSC in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Although each member of Xpress possesses Commission authorization, Xpress will exercise sufficient control over the members, in conformance with the requirements of LAX management, that the Commission staff initially determined that the Public Utilities Code mandated that Xpress also obtain PSC authority.
Notice of the application appeared in the Commission's Daily Calendar on September 4, 1998, and on September 17, 1998, the Commission issued Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Resolution 176-3000 in which it preliminarily categorized the proceeding as ratesetting and found that no hearing was required.
On October 5, 1998, protests were filed by Airway Shuttle, Ace Shuttle, California Dream, 1-M Lucky Shuttle, Shuttle 2000, A-1 Prince Airport Shuttle, E-Z Shuttle, USA Shuttle, 3R Express, 1-A Sahara Shuttle, LAX Chequer Van, Inc., and Quick Trip Airport Shuttle, Inc. All protests stated that Xpress was currently operating without required Commission authority, and requested a hearing.
On October 28, 1998, the Chief ALJ issued a ruling assigning the application to Commissioner Duque and ALJ Bushey. On November 6, 1998, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ convened a telephonic prehearing conference (PHC) and adopted a hearing schedule. On November 11, 1998, they issued a scoping memo finding that a hearing was required and setting out the hearing schedule adopted at the PHC.
On February 25, 1999, the ALJ presided over evidentiary hearings. Applicant presented its general manager who offered testimony on the details of Xpress' operations and management. Protestants' offered one witness that disagreed with the Commission staff's requirement that Xpress obtain a PSC. Several other persons, some of whom were not protestants and none of who submitted written testimony in accord with the procedural schedule, offered comments on the application. The protestants failed to file any written testimony which raised any factual issues of fitness of Applicant. Protestants' sole issue was their assertion that the Public Utilities Code did not require organizations such as Xpress to obtain PSC authority.
On March 3, 1999, Applicants filed a motion seeking interim authority and stating that LAX management requires that they begin offering service on April 1, 1999. Protestants filed a document that states that they "object" to granting such authority but offered no basis for their objection.
On March 23, 1999, the ALJ issued a draft decision recommending that Xpress be granted interim operating authority.
On April 9, 1999, the Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles World Airports (Board), the policy-making body that operates LAX, submitted comments on the ALJ's draft decision. The comments stated that the Board had made its own determination that Xpress was fit and capable of providing shuttle van service at LAX, and that the Board fully supported the draft decision.
On April 12, 1999, Applicant submitted its post hearing brief. Protestants submitted no brief. In D.99-04-045 issued April 22, 1999, the Commission granted Xpress interim operating authority.
Pursuant to § 1701.1,2 this proceeding is categorized as ratesetting, and evidentiary hearings were held. Thus, § 1701.3(a) requires a report of the number of days of hearings, the number of days the Commissioner was present, and whether the decision was completed on time. The ALJ presided over one day of hearings, which the Commissioner was unable to attend. The decision was completed on time.
The record in this proceeding reveals that protestants have not raised a substantive issue regarding the fitness of Xpress to provide this service. Indeed, each component member of Xpress is duly authorized to provide this very service.
The essence of protestants' position is that the Commission should not issue Xpress a PSC certificate because its operations do not meet the statutory standards for PSC or common carrier. Protestants contend that Xpress will be simply "coordinating passengers" rather than running a shuttle van operation.
Several individuals, some of which were protestants and some of which were not, also appeared at the hearing. To allow these individuals a brief opportunity to present statements for the Commission's consideration, the ALJ allowed each to make comments on the record. The comments generally alleged business-related wrongdoing, most of which was irrelevant to the Commission's authority or beyond its jurisdiction. Because the commenters did not participate in the full hearing process, i.e., presenting pre-filed written testimony or briefs to which the applicant could respond, their allegations will be accorded little weight.
4. Requirement for Commission Authorization
The Commission has previously approved the operating authority request of Blue Van Joint Venture, another LAX door-to-door shuttle van concessionaire operating as an "umbrella" or "overarching" organization whose underlying members or partners will actually operate the vehicles and hold PSC authority of their own in Decision (D.) 98-12-062. We, therefore, disagree with protestants' contention that such authority is unnecessary, for the reasons stated in that decision. The Commission reached a similar conclusion with regard to Rideshare Port Management, L.L.C. (Rideshare), in D.99-04-050.
