In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
Neb.2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc., an Nebraska-certified open class carrier, received a Commission letter ordering it to cease "taxi" operations after the Commission learned it might be operating on a taxi (on-demand) basis.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C) permits open class carriers to provide on-demand (taxi-like) services or is limited to prearranged trips.
- The Commission declined a declaratory ruling and opened an investigative proceeding, then issued an order concluding Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged for-hire service only and prohibits on-demand passenger-for-hire services.
- Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretive order to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the Commission’s interpretation exceeded the rule’s plain language and that its past operations deserved grandfathering/color-of-right protection.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the Commission’s interpretation de novo and examined (1) whether Rule 010.01C’s language restricts open class carriers to prearranged service and (2) whether the Commission’s interpretive action effectively created a new rule without proper rulemaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C restricts open class carriers to prearranged service | Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not limit open class service to prearranged trips and allows on-demand service | Commission: Rule 010.01C should be read to permit only prearranged for-hire service, not on-demand taxi service | Court: Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not impose a prearranged-only restriction; Commission’s reading is unsupported and erroneous |
| Whether the Commission acted within authority under § 75-118.01 in issuing the interpretive order | Golden Plains: Commission exceeded authority by effectively creating a new rule without APA rulemaking | Commission: § 75-118.01 authorizes the Commission to determine scope/meaning of regulations | Court: Commission did not interpret language in the rule but read a new restriction into it, effectively creating a rule without rulemaking; impermissible |
| Whether prior Commission statements or regulatory history support the Commission’s new interpretation | Golden Plains: Historical comments and prior Commission practice allowed prearranged or on-demand service; Commission previously contrasted open class with taxicab service to permit demand trips | Commission: (implied) recent order reflects correct interpretation and authority to define scope | Court: Historical record and prior comments show the Commission originally contemplated both prearranged and demand trips; this undercuts the Commission’s new, restrictive interpretation |
| Whether Golden Plains is entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past operations | Golden Plains: Past service history should protect existing operations | Commission: Not argued as prevailing defense in opinion | Court: Did not apply grandfathering; resolved case on statutory/regulatory interpretation grounds and vacated Commission’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (interpretation of statutes/regulations is a question of law reviewed independently)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (Commission authority to interpret rules discussed)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (distinguishing interpretation of existing rule language from creating new rules)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (give regulatory language its plain and ordinary meaning)
- Mahnke v. State, 276 Neb. 57 (standard on statutory/regulatory interpretation)