Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Application of Starr Transit Co., Inc., No. A-00099608, F.2, Am-A.
S. Berne Smith, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for petitioners, Philboro Coach Corp. and Romano's School Bus Service, Inc.
James D. Campbell, Jr., Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, for petitioner, Greyhound Lines, Inc.
David E. Thomas, Erskine and Wolfson, for petitioner, Auch Inter-Borough Transit Company.
Eric A. Rohrbaugh, Assistant Counsel, with him Mark S. Jennings, Assistant Counsel, Alfred N. Lowenstein, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Alan R. Squires, Steinberg, Greenstein, Gorelick & Price, for intervenors, Starr Transit Co., Inc.
Judges Rogers, MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case. President Judge Crumlish, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 177]
These consolidated petitions seek review of an order of the Public Utility Commission (PUC or Commission) which granted the request of Starr Transit Company (Applicant) to transport, as a common carrier,
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 178]
persons in group and party service*fn1 from points in the city and county of Philadelphia and from points in the counties of Montgomery and Delaware to points in Pennsylvania.*fn2 The case is presently before this Court for the second time, the PUC's original order granting transportation authority having been previously vacated and remanded for failure to articulate findings of fact sufficient for this Court to exercise its review function. Philboro Coach Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 46, 423 A.2d 751 (1980). We now affirm.
Protestants*fn3 have presented three questions for this Court's determination. The first of these questions is whether the PUC has complied with this Court's prior order that the PUC enter "a new order setting forth specific findings of fact upon which its conclusion and decision is based." 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 52, 423 A.2d at 754.
The degree of specificity required of findings of fact is not a high one, particularly in motor carrier certificate cases. Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 5, 315 A.2d 889 (1974). While obviously this Court's review function becomes easier as the findings become more detailed, the absence of numerous formal findings will not necessarily preclude review. Rather, the findings need only be detailed and specific enough to enable this Court ...