LAW.docx

MEMORANDUM
TO:RON LAW
FROM:BRAD PURDY
DATE:NOVEMBER 23, 1998
RE:EFFECT OF PUBLIC LAW 105-178 AMENDING 49 U.S.C. § 14501 ON THE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION OVER CHARTER BUS COMPANIES
You have asked that I provide you with an opinion as to the legal effect of Congress’s recent amendment to Title 49 and the effect that it has on this Commission’s jurisdiction over the operation of charter bus companies.
Public Law 105-178 became effective on June 10, 1998.  As amended, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(1) and (2) provides:
(a)Motor carriers of passengers—
(1)Limitation on state law.—No state or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more states shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to—
(A)scheduling of interstate or intrastate transportation (including discontinuance or reduction in the level of service) provided by motor carriers of passengers subject to jurisdiction under subchapter (1) of Chapter 135 of this title on an interstate route.
(B)[Or relating to] the implementation of any change in the rates for such transportation or for any charter transporta­tion except to the extent that notice, not in excess of 30 days, of changes in schedules may be required; or
(C)The authority to provide intrastate or interstate charter bus transportation.  
(2)Matters not covered.  Paragraph (1) shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a state to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle, or the authority of a state to regulate carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-insurance authorization.
As we have discussed, the Commission chose to relinquish any regulatory authority over charter bus companies it had recently amended its rules to acknowledge the deregulation of freight carriers.  The Commission continues, however, to enforce safety regulations and requires a minimum level of insurance for charter bus companies.  Consequently, the issue that you have asked me to address is simply whether the Commission’s current practices are consistent with Public Law 105-178.  It is my opinion that 49 U.S.C. § 14501(a)(2) unequivocally authorizes the Commission’s current practice of assuming oversight of charter bus companies with respect to safety and insurance requirements.  I believe that the Commission may legally continue to issue permits to charter bus companies as a means of identifying those carriers and administering insurance and safety requirements.
As we have discussed, the Commission’s Motor Carrier Rules still contain references to the Commission’s regulatory power to determine whether a motor carrier, including charter bus companies, has operating authority within the state of Idaho.  As discussed above, it is not the Commission’s practice nor does the Commission contend that it has jurisdiction to determine operating authority of such carriers in the wake of federal preemption in this area.  Consequently, the Commission is not conducting itself in violation of federal statutes or the concept of federal pre-emption the language of its rules notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, I believe that the language in the Commission’s Motor Carrier Rules referring to “operating authority” should be deleted or altered as a housekeeping measure during the next rulemaking cycle.
The foregoing opinion is that of my own and does not constitute a formal opinion of the Attorney General.
Brad Purdy
M:law.bp