V. Protest
Rideshare Port Management L.L.C. (Protestant), doing business as Prime Time Shuttle, protested this application. The protest was dated August 26, 2006, but filed with the Commission on August 31, 2006. Prime Time Shuttle is a certificated passenger stage carrier (PSC-11415) providing on-call service to and from the Los Angeles, John Wayne, Ontario International, Long Beach, and Bob Hope airports. It also provides on-call service to and from the Harbors and Amtrak station in Los Angeles. Protestant is a competitor of the Applicants.
Protestant is concerned that approval of this application may adversely impact service that it and Applicants' Five PSCs provide to the Los Angeles and other airports. Protestant identified several issues that it claims should be addressed in an evidentiary hearing. The issues are whether the proposed change of control will result in a breach of a Concessionaire Agreement (Agreement) with the Los Angeles Airport's Board of Airport Commission (Los Angeles Airport); a transfer of public utility property; or dismissal of SuperShuttle drivers.5 Protestant is also concerned that a motion for a protective order was not properly noticed. SSI responded to the protest.
A. Breach of a Concessionaire Agreement
SuperShuttle Los Angeles and SuperShuttle Orange County participate in a joint venture known as Blue Van Joint Venture (Blue Van). Blue Van enjoys rights under the Agreement which enables the SuperShuttle PSC holders to transport passengers and baggage into and out of the Los Angeles Airport in return for meeting service quality obligations described in the Agreement. Protestant enjoys similar rights under a separate agreement with the Los Angeles Airport.
Protestant alleges that Commission approval of this application would cause Applicants to breach the Agreement and thereby nullify the Agreement. This is because Section 12 of the Agreement (a copy of which was not provided) prohibits the sale, assignment or other transfer of control or ownership of the rights set forth in the Agreement without specific approval of the Los Angeles Airport.
This alleged breach of Agreement issue is doubtful because the Agreement, along with other contracts, agreements, property and operating authority of those PSCs, will remain with the PSCs, and the joint venture PSCs will continue to exist as they currently do, transporting passengers and baggage into and out of the Los Angeles Airport in return for meeting service quality obligations pursuant to the Agreement. To the extent Protestant believes that Applicants are breaching the Agreement, Protestant should bring its concern to the attention of the Los Angeles Airport.
B. Transfer of Public Utility Property
Protestant also contends that the Agreement is a public utility asset subject to Pub. Util. Code § 8516 because the agreement is tantamount to a franchise or permit necessary and useful in the performance of Applicants' duties to the public under Pub. Util. Code § 6001.5.
We reject this contention for two reasons. First, this application is for transfer of control; there is no proposal before us to sell or transfer any public utility assets, and no proposal to transfer any franchise or permits of the PSCs. Second, had Protestant undertaken a closer reading of Pub. Util. Code § 6001.5, it would have seen that that section applies only to a "pipeline system transmitting oil or products thereof."
C. Dismissal of SuperShuttle Drivers
Protestant asserts that many of the SuperShuttle drivers have been in communication with Protestant showing concern for their status once VTOD is authorized to acquire control of the Five PSCs. Protestant is concerned that those drivers, who have all invested $30,000 or more for a "Unit Franchise," may be subject to dismissal and may lose their investments.
Protestant's assertion is hearsay and speculative. Irrespective, Applicants are not proposing any change to their standard franchise agreement, which fixes the obligations of both drivers and SuperShuttle.7 Further, this application only seeks authority to transfer control of the Five PSCs through a merger agreement, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 854. The authority requested in this proceeding does not seek to relieve Applicants of any of their contractual obligations.
D. Notice of a Motion for a Protective Order
A copy of applicants' merger agreement and non-public financial information of VTOD, SSI, and the Five PSCs was filed under seal as part of a written motion seeking approval of a protective order and authority to maintain non-public information under seal, pursuant to General Order 66-C. The motion asserted this information is commercially sensitive.
Protestant contends that proper notice of a motion for a protective order and authority to place confidential information under seal "did not appear in the Commission's Daily Transportation Calendar and therefore, no notice was given..."8
There is no Commission Daily Transportation Calendar. The Commission has only one calendar, the Commission's Daily Calendar. Motions are not noticed in that calendar; Protestant did not identify any Commission rule that requires motions to be noticed in the Commission's Daily Calendar, and in fact there is none. Written motions must be filed with the Commission and served on each party whose name is on the official service list or applicable service list, as required by Rules 2.3 and 45 (recently recodified as Rules 1.9 and 11.1). Applicants' motion to place information under seal was properly filed and served on August 2, 2006.
E. Conclusion
The issues raised by Protestant are completely without merit, and none of Protestant's contentions requires an evidentiary hearing. The protest should be denied.
5 Protestant also seeks an evidentiary hearing on matters unrelated to this change of control application. One such matter is the cost of implementing precautionary measures for air travelers at the Los Angeles Airport since September 11, 2001.
6 This section prohibits any public utility other than a common carrier subject to Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act to sell, lease, assign, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of or encumber the whole or part off its property necessary or useful in the performance of its duties to the public, or any franchise or permit thereunder, without Commission authority.
7 Applicants' standard franchise agreement generally has a 10-year term, with an additional two five-year renewal terms.
8 Protest at page 5.
