96312.docx

MEMORANDUM
TO:RON LAW
FROM:WELDON STUTZMAN
DATE:MARCH 12, 1996
RE:ICC TERMINATION ACT OF 1995; PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FILING OF PASSENGER CARRIER TARIFFS.
Section 14501 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 preempts certain regulatory activities by the state.  Paragraph (a) of §14501 provides that no state “shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision ... relating to scheduling of interstate or intrastate transportation ... provided by motor carrier of passengers...on an interstate route or relating to the implementation of any change in the rates for such transportation.”  Strangely enough, this section does not prevent a state from requiring that a passenger motor carrier keep its tariffs on file, but does preclude a state from enforcing any regulation that requires a carrier to file changes in such tariffs.  Additionally, this limitation does not apply to all passenger carriers, but only those identified in chapter 135 of the Act, primarily interstate carriers.  The preemption relating to passenger carriers is not nearly as broad or explicit as the preemption relating to property carriers.  Paragraph (c) of §14501 prohibits a state from requiring rate tariffs for property transportation as follows: “a state ... may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and affect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property.”  
Given the difference in the language in the two preemption paragraphs, it seems a state is left with more authority to require tariff filings for passenger motor carriers, especially intrastate carriers.  However, it is not clear to me what is left if a state may not require a carrier to file tariffs “relating to the implementation of any change in the rates for [passenger] transportation.
cm/Lmemo: icc.ws