III. 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, directly address the matter of public safety - in particular, that carriers only engage drivers that are validly licensed and tested. We are concerned; therefore, that the alleged violations of statutes and regulations documented by CPSD demonstrate Wine & Roses lacks fitness to continue to conduct the services for which it has obtained the Commission's authority.

In Application 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 it is reasonably fit to be entrusted with a renewal of the Commission's authority.

After the issuance of a charter-party carrier permit, the Commission exercises continuing oversight of the carrier's fitness to operate. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 5381, the Commission has prescribed rules to ensure the safe operating performance of charter-party carriers. Public Utilities Code Section 5378 empowers the Commission to cancel, suspend, or revoke a permit or certificate for any of a number of specified grounds, including:

a. The violation of any of the provisions of [the Passenger Charter-Party Carriers' Act], or of any operating permit or certificate issued thereunder.

b. The violation of any order, decision, rule, regulation, direction, demand, or requirement established by the Commission pursuant to [the Passenger Charter-Party Carriers' Act].

Accordingly, we conclude Wine & Roses and its president, Steve Bonner, should appear and show cause why their operating authority should not be suspended or revoked. While initiating this formal enforcement docket, we also support possible alternatives to formal OIIs to resolve disputes. Thus, we will afford Wine & Roses an opportunity to appear along with CPSD before the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether this matter may be concluded to the satisfaction of all parties without the need for hearing.

IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that

1. An investigation on the Commission's own motion is hereby instituted into the operations and practices of Wine & Roses Limousine Service, a California Corporation, dba AA Limousine, AAA Limousine, Expresso Limousine, Expresso Transportation, AAA Corporate Limousines, Total Transportation Network, La Grande Affaire, and its president, Steve Bonner.

2. A hearing shall be held in which Respondents are ordered to show cause why their operating authorities should not be suspended or revoked. Not later than ten days prior to this hearing, Respondents shall provide counsel for CPSD and the assigned Administrative Law Judge with the prepared testimony that they intend to submit at the hearing. At the hearing, the Assigned Commissioner or Assigned Administrative Law Judge will also determine whether sufficient evidence exists to order the immediate suspension of Respondents' charter-party carrier authorities.

3. At the evidentiary hearing, the Respondents will have an opportunity to present evidence and may contest allegations that Wine & Roses has:

a. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5379 by conducting passenger charter party operations during a period of suspension and after revocation of its Class P Charter Party Permit (TCP 12361-P), from October 7, 2003 through January 25, 2004, and again during a subsequent period of suspension, from December 2, 2004 through December 29, 2004;

b. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5378.1, by failing to maintain on file adequate workers' compensation insurance encompassing period from October 7, 2003 through January 24, 2004;

c. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5374 and G.O. 157-C, Part 10, by failing to enroll 15 employee-drivers in a mandatory testing program, and failing to conduct pre-employment controlled substance testing on 2 employee-drivers, as part of a Mandatory Alcohol and Controlled Substance Testing Certification Program;

d. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5381, CVC Section 1808.1, and G.O. 157-C, Part 5.02, by failing to enroll 18 drivers in the DMV Employer Pull Notice Program;

e. Violated G.O. 157-C, Part 5.01, and CVC Section 15250, by engaging 6 drivers that did not possess the proper class of California Driver License to drive carrier's vehicles with seating capacity greater than 10 passengers;

f. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5381 and G.O. 157-C, Part 3.06 by failing to file all its fictitious business names with the Commission;

g. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5371 by operating at least 8 vehicles with seating capacities of more than 14-passengers, not authorized by its charter-party permit issued pursuant to section 5384(b);

h. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5391 and G.O. 115-F by operating a vehicle with a seating capacity of 16 passengers or more without procuring the required minimum $5,000,000 insurance coverage;

i. Violated Public Utilities Code Section 5381 and G.O. 157-C, Part 7.01 by failing to timely answer a consumer complaint;

In addition, Wine & Roses may contest the level of the fine (up to $5,000 per violation) proposed under Public Utilities Code Sections 5378(b). Under Section 5415 of the Code each additional day Wine and Roses operates without the proper permits may be considered a separate violation. Wine and Roses may be found to be unfit to continue to conduct charter-party passenger transportation service, and have their charter-party carrier permit and certificate suspended or revoked pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 5378(a).

4. CPSD shall continue to investigate the operations of Respondents. Additional information that CPSD intends 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. CPSD need only respond to discovery directed at its investigation of Wine & Roses and the information it submits in this proceeding.

5. Scoping Information. This ordering paragraph shall suffice for the "preliminary scoping memo" required by the Commission's Rule 6 (c):

This proceeding is adjudicatory and, 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 Administrative Law Judge 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's San Francisco Office. Objections to this investigation may be filed but must be confined to jurisdictional issues.

At the same time, the Administrative law Judge is directed to invite Respondents to appear along with CPSD before the Administrative Law Judge to determine whether this matter may be concluded to the satisfaction of all parties without the need for hearing.

6. Respondents are hereby placed on notice that, if CPSD'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, CPSD's declarations, and other related documents to be served by certified mail upon Respondents at:

34 S. Autumn Street

San Jose, CA 95112

408-283-5466

This order is effective today.

Dated June 23, 2005, in San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President

GEOFFREY F. BROWN

SUSAN P. KENNEDY

DIAN M. GRUENEICH

Commissioners

Commissioner John A. Bohn, being necessarily absent, did not participate.