In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc., a Nebraska-certified "open class" carrier, was told by the Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) to stop "taxi" operations after the Commission received information it might be operating on a taxi (on-demand) basis.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether Rule 010.01C permits open class carriers to operate on-demand (taxi-like) services or only prearranged trips.
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling, opened an investigation, and issued an order interpreting Rule 010.01C to allow open class carriers to provide passenger-for-hire service only on a prearranged basis and not on-demand.
- Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretation to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the Commission misread Rule 010.01C and should have applied grandfathering/color-of-right to past operations.
- The Commission relied on its statutory authority to interpret regulations; Golden Plains argued the rule’s plain language does not restrict on-demand service and the Commission had previously stated open class carriers could operate prearranged or on-demand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged trips | Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not restrict on-demand service; prior Commission comments show both prearranged and demand allowed | Commission: may interpret scope of rules and concluded open class carriers are limited to prearranged service | Court: Reversed — Rule 010.01C contains no language limiting open class to prearranged only; Commission’s interpretation is unsupported and erroneous |
| Whether Commission may impose a blanket restriction via interpretation without rulemaking | Golden Plains: Commission cannot read a restriction into the rule that is not present; that would amount to creating a new rule without APA notice-and-comment | Commission: § 75-118.01 authorizes the Commission to determine scope/meaning of regulations | Court: Reversed — interpreting to add a restriction absent textual support improperly creates a new rule and exceeds interpretive authority |
| Whether Commission’s prior statements affect interpretation | Golden Plains: prior Commission commentary and parallel rule language (limousine rule) show intent not to limit open class to prearranged only | Commission: relied on current investigatory interpretation regardless of past commentary | Court: Agreed that prior comments and the absence of limiting language (unlike limousine rule) support that Rule 010.01C was not meant to restrict to prearranged service |
| Whether the court should apply grandfathering/color-of-right to Golden Plains’ past operations | Golden Plains argued it should be protected by prior practice/history | Commission did not apply grandfathering and argued rule interpretation controls going forward | Court did not base reversal on grandfathering; decision rests on textual interpretation of the rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (Neb. 2014) (standards for appellate review of statutes and regulations)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2007) (agency rule interpretation treated like statutes)
- In re Proposed Amend. to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (Neb. 2002) (Commission may interpret existing rules but cannot create new rules without APA compliance)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (Neb. 2002) (regulatory language ordinarily given plain and ordinary meaning)