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 was operating on a taxi (on-demand) basis.
- Golden Plains petitioned for a declaratory ruling on whether Rule 010.01C permits open class carriers to operate on an on-demand (taxi) basis or only on a prearranged basis.
- The Commission treated the petition as requiring an investigative proceeding and issued an order interpreting Rule 010.01C to permit 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, arguing the rule does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service and asserting reliance/"color of right" on its past operations.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo, concluding the plain language of Rule 010.01C does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service and that the Commission improperly read a limitation into the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golden Plains) | Defendant's Argument (Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only | Rule 010.01C contains no language limiting open class carriers to prearranged service and thus permits on-demand service | The Commission asserted authority to interpret the rule to limit open class carriers to prearranged service only | Court held the rule’s plain language does not support the restriction; Commission’s interpretation is clearly erroneous and vacated |
| Whether the Commission lawfully issued its interpretive order under its statutory authority | Golden Plains argued the Commission exceeded authority by effectively creating a new rule without APA rulemaking | Commission relied on § 75-118.01 to justify interpreting rule scope | Court held the Commission exceeded authority by reading a restriction into the rule that the text does not contain; this constituted impermissible rulemaking |
| Whether historical interpretations or comments justify the Commission’s changed interpretation | Golden Plains pointed to adoption comments and past Commission practice indicating open class could be prearranged or on-demand | Commission relied on its present interpretive order as authoritative | Court observed historical comments and prior practice supported Golden Plains and undermined the Commission’s new interpretation |
| Whether Golden Plains should receive grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past operations | Golden Plains argued past practice and expectations supported protection | Commission did not apply grandfathering; sought broad restriction | Court did not need to decide this as Commission’s rule interpretation failed; primary ruling vacated the restriction |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (appellate de novo review of statutory/regulatory interpretation)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (2002) (Commission may interpret existing rules but may not promulgate new rules without APA procedures)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (2007) (agency rule interpretation principles)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (2002) (plain-meaning rule for regulatory text)