In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. (Golden Plains) is a Nebraska-certified open class carrier. The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) alleged it was operating "on a taxi basis" and ordered it to cease such operations.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling about whether 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C) permits open class carriers to provide on-demand (taxi-like) service or only prearranged service.
- The Commission concluded (after treating the matter as an investigative proceeding) that Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged passenger-for-hire transportation and prohibits on-demand service.
- Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretation to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the rule does not contain that restriction and that it should be grandfathered for prior practices.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo, treated the regulation like a statute, and found the plain language of Rule 010.01C neither limits open class carriers to prearranged service nor bars on-demand service.
- The Court reversed and vacated the Commission’s interpretation as unsupported by the rule’s language and as effectively creating a new regulation without APA rulemaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 010.01C limit open class carriers to prearranged service only? | Rule 010.01C does not contain language restricting service to prearranged trips; thus open class carriers may provide on-demand service. | The Commission contends the rule should be interpreted to allow only prearranged service (no on-demand/taxi service). | The court held the rule’s plain language does not impose a prearranged-only limitation; the Commission’s contrary interpretation is clearly erroneous. |
| Was the Commission authorized to adopt its restrictive interpretation without rulemaking? | Golden Plains argues the Commission exceeded authority by effectively creating a new rule without following the Administrative Procedure Act. | The Commission argues § 75-118.01 permits it to interpret regulations and thus its order was within authority. | The court held the Commission’s action read a restriction into the rule that the text does not support and therefore constituted impermissible rulemaking by interpretation. |
| Should Golden Plains receive grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past conduct? | Golden Plains sought application of grandfathering principles based on past service history. | The Commission did not concede grandfathering and enforced cessation. | The court did not adopt or decide grandfathering as unnecessary because it vacated the Commission’s restrictive interpretation. |
| Is the rule ambiguous such that interpretation is required? | Golden Plains: rule is plain and unambiguous and permits on-demand service. | Commission: interpretation necessary to define the boundary between open class and taxicab service. | The court found no ambiguity in the rule on this point and relied on its plain meaning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (obligation of appellate court to reach independent legal conclusions)
- In re Proposed Amend. to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (Commission may interpret existing rules but may not create new ones by reading unsupported restrictions into regulations)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency rule interpretation treated like statute)