In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. (Golden Plains) is certified in Nebraska as an "open class" carrier.
- The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) received information Golden Plains was operating "on a taxi basis" and sent a cease-and-desist letter.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether Rule 010.01C (defining "open class service") permits on-demand, for-hire service or only prearranged trips.
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling, opened an investigative proceeding, and issued an order interpreting Rule 010.01C to permit only prearranged passenger-for-hire service and prohibit on-demand service.
- Golden Plains appealed, arguing the Commission’s interpretation exceeded the rule’s plain language and that the carrier should be entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past operations.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the interpretation de novo and concluded the Commission’s reading was not supported by Rule 010.01C’s text; it reversed and vacated the Commission’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged trips and prohibits on-demand service | Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not limit open class service to prearranged trips and thus allows on-demand service | Commission: Its interpretation (open class = prearranged only) is within its authority to define scope/meaning of its regulations | Court: Rule 010.01C’s plain language contains no such restriction; the Commission’s interpretation is unsupported and reversed |
| Whether the Commission validly issued an interpretive order rather than a new rule without APA rulemaking | Golden Plains: Commission effectively created a new rule by importing a restriction not in the text; must follow APA if making new rules | Commission: Authorized under § 75-118.01 to determine scope and meaning of regulations; prior decisions support interpretive orders | Court: Commission crossed from interpretation into creating a new restriction absent textual support; improper without rulemaking |
| Whether prior regulatory history or Commission practice supports the restriction | Golden Plains: Commission’s prior comments when adopting Rule 010.01C and other definitions (e.g., limousine) show it intended open class to allow demand service and would explicitly limit if intended | Commission: Relied on authority to interpret regulations and argued consistency with its regulatory role | Court: Historical comments show the Commission previously contemplated demand service for open class; absence of limiting language (unlike limousine definition) reinforces that no bar exists |
| Whether Golden Plains is entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right for past services | Golden Plains: Past operations should protect it from enforcement based on changed Commission interpretation | Commission: Enforcement based on its current interpretation/position | Court: Decided on statutory/regulatory interpretation grounds; did not adopt grandfathering remedy (primary ruling vacated the restrictive interpretation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (court reviews statutory/regulatory interpretation de novo)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (agency rule treated like statute for construction)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (language of regulation given plain and ordinary meaning; open to construction only if ambiguous)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (Commission may interpret existing rules but may not create new rules without APA rulemaking)