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

First Circuit

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

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided January 31, 1983·No. 82-1643·Published·Cited by 12 cases

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

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.

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).

Pincite

698 F.2d 559 (National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Edward F. Burke, Administrator, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related