National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Edward F. Burke, Administrator, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities

698 F.2d 559, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20451, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30885
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedJanuary 31, 1983
Docket82-1643
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 698 F.2d 559 (National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Edward F. Burke, Administrator, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Edward F. Burke, Administrator, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities, 698 F.2d 559, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20451, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30885 (1st Cir. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons stated in its opinion. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F.Supp. 509 (D.R.I.1982). We simply add, as to the “ac *560 cident report” requirement, that we read the opinion of the Department of Transportation as interpreting its regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 171.16 (1981), to forbid similar state regulations aimed solely at hazardous materials carriers (and not justified by, say, an emergency). State of Rhode Island Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Liquified Natural Gas and Liquified Propane Gas Intended to be Used by a Public Utility; Inconsistency Ruling (IR-2), 44 Fed.Reg. 75,566, 75,572 (1979). We believe that an agency has authority to interpret its own regulations and that a court must show considerable respect to any such interpretation. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 790, 63 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980); Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413-14, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945). This interpretation is reasonable, and the district court, as well as DOT, could readily find a conflict between Rhode Island’s requirement and this DOT regulation as so interpreted. For that reason, the requirement is inconsistent with federal law, and therefore invalid under 49 U.S.C. § 1811(a).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
Ordner v. K-H Corp.
74 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Rhode Island, 1999)
Peterson v. Horan, 92-1253 (1995)
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 1995
New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass'n v. Town of Plaistow
836 F. Supp. 59 (D. New Hampshire, 1993)
Sawash v. Suburban Welders Supply Co.
553 N.E.2d 894 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1990)
Opinion No. (1988)
Missouri Attorney General Reports, 1988

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 F.2d 559, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20451, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-tank-truck-carriers-inc-v-edward-f-burke-administrator-rhode-ca1-1983.