Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of 75 P.R.M.D. 17 -- Uniform System of Accounts for Bus Companies -- Account 3900 "Other Operating Expenses," Subsidies Subject to Assessment, adopted June 22, 1976, entered June 30, 1976.
Henry M. Wick, Jr., with him Charles J. Streiff, and Wick, Vuono & Lavelle, for petitioner.
Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him Barnett Satinsky, First Assistant Counsel, and Edward J. Morris, Counsel, for Respondent.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.
Suburban Lines, Inc. (Suburban) appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) directing the adoption of a regulation. More particularly, by Notice of Proposed Rule Making published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on August 9, 1975 (5 Pa. B. 2044-45), the Commission gave notice of a
proposed rule making docket, 75 P.R.M.D. 17, seeking to amend Section 3900 of the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for Bus Companies. Under the proposed amendment, Section 3900 was to be amended to include as "other operating revenue" monies received by bus companies as operating subsidies or payments for services rendered from any federal, state or local governmental agency. These subsidies or payments would then be subject to the computation of the bus company's assessment liability under Section 1201 of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Law, Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, as amended, 66 P.S. § 1461.
Responding by written comment, Suburban and two other parties*fn1 filed comments in opposition to the inclusion of subsidies received from the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) as assessable operating revenues.
On June 17, 1976, a request was made of the Commission for oral argument with respect to the proposed rule making. The request was denied. By order of June 22, 1976, and entered on June 30, 1976, the Commission directed that the proposed regulation be adopted.*fn2
Following entry of the order by the Commission, Suburban timely filed its petition for review at which time the Commission responded by moving to quash and/or dismiss Suburban's petition in this Court. We dismiss Suburban's appeal.
Simply stated, the Commission argues, and we agree, that no statutory authority exists for appellate review of an order directing ...