In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp., 297 Neb. 105

Background

Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. (Golden Plains) is certified in Nebraska to provide "open class" passenger service under 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C).
The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) received information that Golden Plains was operating "on a taxi basis" and ordered it to cease taxi operations; Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on the scope of open class authority.
The Commission treated the petition as a matter of statewide commercial importance and resolved the question in an investigative proceeding, then issued an interpretation holding that open class carriers may provide passenger transportation for hire only on a prearranged basis and not on an on-demand basis.
Rule 010.01C defines open class service by three elements (carrying passengers for hire; route control/not a defined regular route; mileage- or per-trip fare) but does not include the words "prearranged" or otherwise limit demand service.
The Commission had previously (when adopting Rule 010.01C) commented that open class trips could be made on a prearranged and/or demand basis, and the Commission elsewhere uses explicit "prearranged and not on a demand basis" language for limousine service.
Golden Plains appealed, arguing the Commission’s interpretation exceeded the regulation’s plain language and that its prior operations should be preserved under grandfathering/color-of-right principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only	Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C contains no language limiting open class to prearranged service; plain meaning permits on-demand service	Commission: It may interpret the rule to limit open class carriers to prearranged service (and relied on its authority to interpret regulations)	Court: Reversed — Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service and Commission’s contrary interpretation is clearly erroneous
Whether the Commission acted within its interpretive authority or effectively promulgated a new rule without APA procedures	Golden Plains: Commission created a new restriction not found in the rule and thus exceeded its authority	Commission: Relied on its statutory authority to interpret regulations to justify the order	Court: Commission exceeded its authority here because it read a restriction into the rule that is not supported by the rule’s language
Whether prior Commission statements and rule history support limiting open class service	Golden Plains: Rulemaking history and prior comments showed the Commission accepted both prearranged and demand service for open class; lack of limiting language contrasts with limousine rule which explicitly restricts to prearranged service	Commission: (Implicit) historical materials do not override current interpretive judgment	Court: Historical record supports that the rule originally allowed demand service and the absence of limiting language (unlike limousine rule) shows intent not to restrict open class carriers
Whether Golden Plains is entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past operations	Golden Plains: Past service history should afford protection	Commission: Did not apply grandfathering in its order	Court: Decision reversed on statutory-interpretation grounds; court did not rely on or adopt a grandfathering ruling (primary holding rejects the interpretation)

Key Cases Cited

Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (discussing independent appellate review of statutory/regulatory interpretation)
Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency interpretations treated like statutes)
In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (agency may interpret rules, but interpretation must track rule language)
Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (plain meaning rule for construing regulations)
Telrite Corp. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 288 Neb. 866 (context on agency authority and subsequent statutory developments)