*1 TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. YELLOW MICHIGAN
et al. No. 01-270. October 2002 Decided November Argued *2 Court, Rehnquist, J., of the in which O’Connor, opinion delivered the J., Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Scaua, JJ., J., post, *3 opinion concurring judgment, filed an Stevens, joined. p. 48. A. Charles the cause for argued petitioner. Rothfeld Tager, briefs were Evan M. Robert L. Bron-
With him on Bryant, ston, R. John W. Ian Hunter.
Austin C. Schlick the cause the United States argued as amicus curiae With him on the of support petitioner. Attorney Olson, brief were Solicitor General Assistant Gen- Deputy McCollum, Wallace, eral Solicitor General Michael Jay Singer, Forrest, Tine, G. K. M. Bruce Kirk Van Paul Geier, Andrews, Dale C. and Laura C. Fentonmiller. Casey, L.
Thomas Solicitor General Michigan, argued were Jen the cause for With him the briefs respondents. Granholm, M. I. Susan Leffler, General, As Attorney nifer Henry Voges and David A. J. General, sistant Solicitor Boynton, Assistant General.* Attorneys
Justice delivered the O’Connor the Court. opinion case, (2002), We certiorari in this 534 U. to S. granted determine whether Court erred Supreme Jr., *Roy Wolson, Law, T. Englert, Sherri Beth L. Lynn and Robert Jr., filed a brief for Digges, Associations, Inc., the American Trucking et al. urging as amici curiae reversal. a 14504(e)(2)(B)(iv)(III), §C. only 49 U. S. that, under
holding fee that to relevant fee is determining State’s “generic” 15, as of November 1991.” was “collected I Beginning in authorized States require A within their borders carriers interstate motor operating of their Interstate Commerce with State proof register L. Pub. (ICC) interstate operating permits. Commission ed.). (1970 302(b)(2) § Con- 89-170, 49 U. S. C. Stat. that state requirements registration provided gress so commerce on interstate an undue burden not constitute long they regulations promulgated were consistent Ibid. ICC. by interstate charge
Prior to the ICC allowed States vehi- fees of annual up motor carriers (1992). As registration, proof cle. See CFR 1023.33 of the car- for each States would issue stamp participating affixed on a “uni- was The stamp rier’s vehicles. 1023.32. vehicle, within in each carried form identification cab car[d]” State. issuing the name the square bearing as the to be known 1023.32(d)-(e). came §§ This system Registration, Insurance card” “bingo system. (1993). 9 I. C. C. 2d 610 unsatisfactory many card” proved “bingo regime *4 on carriers burdens the administrative placed
who felt that to the benefits those and States outweighed participating 102-171, I, 49 No. pt. p. States and to the H. R. Rep. public. (1991). In 437-438 102-404, (1991); No. pp. H. R. Conf. Rep. of Act Efficiency the Intermodal Surface Transportation to im the ICC directed (ISTEA), therefore Congress card” regime.* the to “bingo a new system replace plement responsibility and assigned the ICC in 1995 *Congress abolished Secretary the System Registration State Single new administering the 104-88, 1995, Pub. L. of Act Termination See ICC Transportation. of 49 U. S. C. §4005, 102-240, See § L. Stat. Pub. ed.). 11506(c) (1994 the system, called Under the new [would Registration System, Single “a carrier motor State annually only register be] State,” one required [would] registration single be deemed and “such State satisfy requirements States.” registration of all other the 11506(c)(1)(A) (C). §§ behalf one Thus, and State would—on register participating vehi- of all a carrier’s other States — paperwork, and distribute cles, file maintain collect and and 11506(c)(2)(A). § registration Participation in the fees. System Single Registration States was limited to those State system. “bingo participate in that the card” had elected 11506(c)(2)(D). § registration capped per-vehicle fee that also
ISTEA charge participating interstate motor carriers. States could directed the ICC (I) system a fee . .. that will be based on “establish op- motor vehicles the carrier number commercial erates in a and on the number State (II) operates, which will minimize the costs the carrier (III) system, complying with the participating will result in a fee for each equal vehicle, that such fee, to the not to exceed $10 as of 1991.” November collected or 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv). §
Congress provided charging any or collection of system not the ICC’s fee fee in accordance with “be on interstate commerce.” deemed to a burden be 11506(c)(2)(C). § 101, 109
§ governing Stat. 803. The of ISTEA were provisions 14504(c). S. C. High amended and recodified. See 49 U. The Federal Administration, way Secretary Transportation, adopted under the System, regulations Registration implemented (1996), Safety 61 Fed. the Federal Motor Carrier Reg. 49 U. S. C. system, Administration now has administer authority to 113(f)(1). *5 May implementing regulations in issued its final The ICC Single-State proceedings. after notice-and-comment rulemaking gave Registration, supra. rise Insurance question under the whether, in case: Sin to the central this gle Registration System, were free terminate State “reciprocity agreements” place “bingo that were in under the regime. agreements, Id., card” at 617-619. Under these reciprocal exchange treatment, for some States discounted registration or waived fees for carriers from other States. Id., at 617. issuing proposed soliciting
In a set of rules further questioned power comments, the ICC whether had the require pre-existing reciprocity preserve agree States to Single Registration, ments. (Sub-No. State Insurance No. MC-100 (Jan.
6), 1993); Single 22, 1993 WL *12 17833, see Registration State Insurance (1992). Rules, 1, 11 9 I. 2d C. C. — 1993 voluntary It noted that these were mutually long beneficial and commented that “as as no car [a State’s] charged rier is more 15, than standard November limit), (subject 1991, fee all for carriers to the the re [ISTEA] quirements of are satisfied.” 17833, 1993 WL *12. implementing regulations, In its final however, the light prelimi concluded, comments, of further that its nary reciprocity agreements view on was inconsistent with fee-cap provision and with “the ISTEA’s intent of the law that the for the while flow revenue States be maintained for re burden of the carriers be Single Registration, 2d, duced.” Insurance 9 I. C. C. partic agency at 618. The therefore determined that States ipating Registration System Single in the “must con charged collected under sider fees or determining
when of November the fees collected as 15, 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv).” §by Id., required Trucking 618-619; Associations —Peti see also American Reg Declaratory Insurance tion Order — (1993). istration, 1194-1195 9 I. C. 2d *6 Utility Regulatory National Association of Commissioners (NARUC) regulatory sought re and 18 state commissions provisions of view of the and certain ICC’s determination System regulations. Single Registration NAR UC (1994). Ap ICC, v. 41 F. 3d 721 United Court peals plain for the District that the of Columbia concluded language supported of the statute the ICC’s determination participating that States in the new consider must 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv). reciprocity agreements under 49 U. S. C. 3d, F. at 729. B implementation Single Registra- Prior to the of the System, Michigan participated “bingo tion had in the card” (Affidavit regime. App. Lonergan, See of Thomas Di- R. Regulation Michigan rector, Motor Carrier Division of the 3e) (hereinafter ¶ Lonergan Public Service Commission Af- fidavit). Michigan Legislature had directed the Michi- gan levy regis- Public Service Commission to an annual per tration fee of on $10 vehicle interstate motor carrier simultaneously vehicles and endowed the commission with authority reciprocal agreement “enter into a with a state.” 478.7(4)(West 1988). Comp. Mich. Laws Ann. Pursuant to reciprocal agreements, such empowered the commission was [otherwise] to “waive required.” the fee Ibid.
Petitioner in this case trucking company is an interstate headquartered years For Kansas. calendar 1990 and Michigan 1991,the levy Public Service Commission did not a petitioner’s fee for trucks pur- that were licensed in Illinois policy suant to its charge “not a fee carriers with vehi- registered cles in states charge Michigan- ... which did not 3i). based App. (Lonergan ¶ carriers a fee.” Affidavit In Michigan however, the Public Service Commission an- change nounced a in its policy to take effect on February 1, policy, 1992. Under the new the commission granted reciprocity policies treatment based on the of the State in which a carrier principal maintained place its in which individual vehicles than the State business rather arrange- Michigan reciprocal had no Because were licensed. Michigan Kansas, Public Service Commission ment with levying September fee of petitioner a a bill in sent registration year petitioner’s en- the 1992 vehicle for January payment 1,1992. due on tire fleet, protest paid 1991under fees in October Petitioner seeking brought Court Claims later suit paid for its Illinois-licensed vehicles refund the fees it System Registration into effect. came after the *7 ed.) 11506(c)(3)(1994 (setting date 49 effective See U. S. 1994). alleged that, January because Michi- 1, of Petitioner registra- charged” a 1991 gan fee for the had not “collected or year fee-cap Illinois, tion in ISTEA’s for trucks licensed Michigan levying provision prohibits from on Illinois- fee trucks. licensed summary disposition, Michigan
On cross for motions petitioner. Freight of Yellow ruled in favor Court Claims 1996) (Mar. System, Michigan, 13, No. Inc. v. 95-15706-CM I). (Yellow holding Freight System The Court of Claims’ agency declaratory in which the held relied on an ICC order caps fee-cap provision fees at level “col that ISTEA’s year charged” 1991, not those fees lected or for statutory registration year 1992in advance levied Trucking Associa Id., cutoff see American 3-4; date. at supra, tions, at 1192, 1195. Appeals Michigan similar
The on Court of affirmed System, Michigan, grounds. Freight Inc. v. 231 Yellow (1998) (Yellow Freight Sys- App. Mich. 2d 762 194,585 W.N. II). rejected Michigan’s Appeals tem also ar- Court of gument that States not consider need determining “charged fees or in level of collected noting 15, November that the had determined 1991,” considered, must be supra. upheld ICC, agency’s in been v. decision had NARUC 2d, Freight System supra, II, 202-203, 585 N. W. Yellow at at 766. Freight Supreme Court reversed. Yellow Michigan,
System,
2d
21,
464 Mich.
627 N. W.
Inc. v.
III).
(2001) (Yellow Freight System
concluded
The court
determining
“reciprocity agreements
in
are not relevant
[a State]
15,
‘charged
what fee
or collected’ as November
expressly
at 242. The court
Id.,
2d,
1991.”
at
627 N. W.
contrary
rejected
conclu
the District of
Circuit’s
Columbia
(citing
ICC,
2d,
N.
at 240
v.
Id.,
sion.
at
627 W.
NARUC
supra).
applied
v.
The Court
Chevron U.S. A. Inc. Natural
(1984),
Council, Inc.,
but
Resources
II ISTEA, In made an interpretive at hand. task authority promulgate express delegation of to the ICC Single Registra- implementing the for new State standards 11506(c)(1)(1994 ed.). System. 49 The ICC S. C. tion U. fee-cap provision subsequent to interpreting ISTEA’s so, did rulemaking. United v. See a notice-and-comment (2001) (“[A]very good indica- Corp., 218, 229 533 S. Mead U. [is an] express meriting delegation Chevron treatment tor process authorizatio[n] engage the of rule- congressional in rulings adjudication produces regulations making that or or claimed”). Highway Ad- is The Federal which deference regulations, adopted supra, at the ICC’s see ministration Registration System Single adminis- is now n., and the Safety by tered the Motor Carrier Administration. Federal §113. 49 U.S. C.
Accordingly, question text the before us is whether the issue, or, not, statute if whether the ICC’s resolves permissible light to be interpretation is the deference statutory agency If the under the scheme. accorded precise we clearly question issue,” speaks at “to statute expressed give unambiguously intent to the “must effect Congress.” statute Chevron, S., at 842-843. If the 467 U. specific ambiguous respect to the “silent or is instead it is agency’s interpretation if issue,” we must sustain Id., permissible of the statute.” on a construction “based (2002). Walton, 212, 217-218 see v. 535 U. S. 843; Barnhart de fee-cap provision foreclose the ICC’s does not ISTEA’s rec pre-existing charged under States’ that fees termination by new iprocity agreements effect, frozen were, requires System. provision Registration participating State fee for in a each new “result such equal vehicle, to the to exceed fee, not 1991.” charged as of November collected *9 14504(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). or language “collected The C. U. S. charged” that a quite naturally read to fees can be mean actually charged. can or The thus State collected statute easily making a it “for chose, be the ICC unlawful read as modify agreement to or so as State renounce a any charged 1991, alter or as of November fee collected system.” predecessor registration under American Trucking Single Associations, 1194; 2d, 9 I. at see C. C. Registration, 2d, Insurance 9 C. C. at 618-619. I. Michigan Supreme language of held that the Court compels fee-cap provision Al a ISTEA’s different result. though acknowledged respect is silent that ISTEA reciprocity agreements, concluded court nonetheless fee-cap provision have mandates that those bearing no in the of what “col determination fee a State Freight charged” 15, 1991. lected as of November Yellow System Mich., 31, at at III, 2d, 627 N. W. 241. The court Registration System reasoned that was company, “based not the fees from one individual collected place.” had but on the state Ibid. fee added). (emphasis reading might While such a reason be compels particular nothing in the statute result. able, provision fee-cap system,” to a but refers not “fee charged.” . to the . collected or 49 U. S. “fee . 14504(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). a rule, Under the ICC’s where “fee . fee, waives its its . . collected or charged” interpre- is and must zero. The zero remain ICC’s language reading permissible tation is of the of the statute. statutory ambiguity agency’s And, is because there and the interpretation interpretation its receive reasonable, must supra, Chevron, 843. deference. See during rulemaking pointed commenters to the As their out, allow States disavow any fee or collected as of November so as alter potentially permit to increase their system, substantially new a result that revenues under the reasonably quite not intend. believed did the ICC *10 at Registration, 2d, 9 I. C. State Insurance See the “in- rule best served that its 618. ICC concluded be flow of revenue for the tent of the law that the States registration system while the burden the maintained agency Ibid. The carriers be reduced.” considered allowing and to disavow States single, might charge fee administrative a uniform reduce expressed but concern that carriers’ burdens, Ibid, (noting that revenues, balloon. and state costs, “assertedly increase much as carriers’ fees could as some presented a case and that one commenter “worst 900%,” revenues could increase from scenario” which “State $50 million”). million to $200
Respondents for each argue that intended single, would, fee. such a mandate to set a uniform While system, compelled simplified new it is indeed, have the not by language statute, instructs the of the which the ICC charge implement fee, under which a not to a States equal per that is to the fee vehicle, such States exceed $10 1991.” charged as November “collected or freezing by fees Respondents the that, contend also cap, part of the fee charged under express language the not within added a constraint ICC expressed a Supreme Court statute. “[i]t stating not for the is ICC ... concern, similar at Mich., 32, 627 N. W. the statute.” 464 insert words into Congress’ precisely command, how- was at 241-242. It 2d, govern promulgate the Sin- ever, that the standards (1994 11506(c) System, Registration gle S. C. 49 U. ambigu- ed.), any agency for that to resolve thus was statutory Mead any in the scheme. See fill in holes ities hold supra, Chevron, To supra, at 843-844. Corp., 229; actually charged they seems collected to the fees command interpretation statute’s a us reasonable to exceed “equal fee, not fees be that state vehicle, that such State collected or as of November 14504(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). 15, 1991.” 49 S. C. U. Respondents argue rule contravenes ICC’s provision by fee-cap limiting can what a ISTEA’s charge charged to based what was collected from or particular Respondents point carrier. focus of out that the provision State, on the actions of not the actions *11 any particular agree carrier. While we that statute the charged” on what or focuses States “collected rather than particular paid, agree what we carriers do not that the ICC’s inquiry “bingo rule on the focuses the latter. Under the regime, card” States entered into particular categories or that waived reduced fees to necessarily cap ag- of vehicles. The ICC’s rule does not the gregate paid by any particular simply carrier; fee rather, it requires preserve actually they to fees at States the levels charged pursuant collected or to in place as of November 1991. provi- interpretation fee-cap
Because the ICC’s of ISTEA’s is language sion with consistent the the statute and rea- sonably any ambiguity Chevron, resolves therein, see Michigan Supreme S., U. declining the in Court erred to enforce it. judgment is reversed, and the therefore case is re- Michigan Supreme
manded to the proceed- Court for further ings opinion. not inconsistent this
It so ordered. Justice Stevens, concurring judgment. my opinion
In ambiguity there is provi- no in the relevant sions of Transportation Intermodal Efficiency Surface (ISTEA). Act of 1991 In delegated Act, that (ICC) the Interstate power Commerce Commission prescribe “standards” and “amendments standards” that “Single Registration create System.” (1994 ed.). U. S. part delegation, As a sys- authority to establish a “fee gave broad the ICC ISTEA conditions, the third of with three comply that would tem” par- The fee for requirements.1 each two contained which (1) per vehicle and may not exceed $10 ticipating State (2) or equal fee that State “collected must be 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). 15, 1991.” charged as of November charged a fee Michigan collected and $10 had both Because Michigan do thereafter —the so continued in 1991—and those did violate either of not Public Service Commission changed it its method of deter- statutory requirements when respect In- carriers.2 mining reciprocity with to individual Michigan’sfee for 1992 essential features deed, the they of the fee were in The amount 1991: were the same charged” was vehicle the “State collected 1991; that fee was as- after November before and both exactly both the sáme vehicles before kinds of sessed pro- reciprocal arrangements, date; had after viding of the with the a discount or a waiver fee either 1992 that did in 1991. same requirement however, did, an violate additional *12 by imposed method of the when the modified its determining That of vehicles. the home State out-of-state
1 System. “(B) Receipts; Fee standards— —Such amended “(iv) as a fee proof shall establish of of insurance filing (A)(ii) (I) will be provided under of that subparagraph paragraph this in on based commercial operates number of motor vehicles carrier (II) a State on number of States in operates, which the carrier minimize the complying system, will costs of (III) to the will in result a fee for each State that participating equal vehicle, fee, not to that $10 exceed such collected or ed.). 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv) (1994 49 November . . . .” 1991 U.S.C. ante, its 42-43, As explained changed by majority, vehicle from determining reciprocity with individual policy respect to an a license registered based on where that vehicle was and had obtained company to plate reciprocity based on determining trucking where the owned the vehicle place principal individual maintained its business.
agency-imposed requirement effectively precluded a State systemic change significantly making a in- from that would statutory think crease its revenues. I it clear that the dele- gation power system” to a fee the ICC “establish was enough power impose broad include the additional requirements impose to ensure that a would not a §§11506(c)(2)(B)(iv), on “burden (c)(2)(C). interstate commerce.” See rulemaking proceeding confirmed the ICC’s power require preserve pre-existing the States to reci- procity agreements to avoid a in which scenario “some States Registra- would realize windfalls.” State Insurance (1993) tion, (responding 2d I. C. to comment alleging, among things, if other discontinued, were “State revenues increase from could $50 million”); Although Michigan ante, million to see at 41. any agreement, equally did not abandon I think prohibit change clear that the ICC could a in the method implementing significantly those that would increase a revenues, State’s and therefore threaten to bur- den commerce.3 judgment
Thus, I concur the Court’s because the statute authorized the ICC to decide pre-existing that the States’ reciprocity agreements should, in effect, be “frozen.” I do not, however, believe that the statute mandated that result. do I Nor believe imposed by that the additional constraint permissible upheld the ICC should be as a construction of (c)(2)(B)(iv)(III). my opinion, Rather, subsection it was permissible authority exercise of the broad vested in the ICC system” a fee “establish not create “a burden §§ (c)(2)(C). 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv), interstate commerce.” See It is on this I basis that concur in judgment of the Court. *13 every Not change in how is determined would lead to an Indeed, increase in a State’s revenues. may be State’s revenues would decrease after change. satisfied, however, such a I making am an potential increase these is a circumstances sufficient threat to burden commerce within the meaning of the statute.