National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 82-1643

Decision Date31 January 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-1643,82-1643
Citation698 F.2d 559
Parties13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,451 NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CARRIERS, INC., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Edward F. BURKE, Administrator, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

John R. McDermott, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Providence, R.I., for defendant, appellant.

Lawrence W. Bierlein, with whom James J. McGair, Providence, R.I., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.

Before ALDRICH, CAMPBELL and BREYER, Circuit Judges.

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 "accident report" requirement, that we read the opinion of the Department of Transportation as interpreting its regulation, 49 C.F.R. Sec. 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. Sec. 1811(a).

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 Agosto 2006
    ...(Id. at p. 519.) The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision for the reasons stated by the trial court. (National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke (1st Cir.1983) 698 F.2d 559.) When Congress enacted the preemption provision of HMTA in its current form, it provided for preemption of state ......
  • Ordner v. K-H Corp., 97-001ML.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • 19 Julio 1999
    ...S.Rep. No. 93-1192, at 37 (1974), quoted in National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F.Supp. 509, 516 (D.R.I.1982), aff'd 698 F.2d 559 (1st Cir.1983). In 1990, Congress amended the HMTA, passing the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 ("HMTUSA"), Pub.L. No.......
  • Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Railroad Com'n of Texas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 17 Junio 1987
    ...execution of the HMTA and its regulations. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F.Supp. 509, 515 (D.R.I.1982), aff'd, 698 F.2d 559 (1st Cir.1983). As noted in Tank Truck Carriers, these criteria are the traditional judicial tests of preemption. Id. It is under this vast body of ......
  • New Hampshire Motor Transport v. Town of Plaistow
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • 25 Octubre 1993
    ...result in federal preemption by the HMTA. See National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Burke, 535 F.Supp. 509 (D.R.I.1982), aff'd 698 F.2d 559 (1st Cir.1983) (state regulations which prohibit transportation of hazardous substances during rush hours could cause unnecessary delays in conflict wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT