Court Opinion

ID: 2963709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:10.290338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:32.638929
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 94-2095

                  NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                                  TOWN OF PLAISTOW,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                           ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

                               Entered October 25, 1995

               On  petition  for rehearing,  New Hampshire  Motor Transport
          Association  has expanded  its reliance  on an  agency regulation
          touched upon  lightly at one point  in the original  brief.  This
          regulation of the Department of Transportation states that access
          review processes adopted  by the state  shall provide inter  alia
                                                                _____  ____
          for "denial  of access to  terminals . . .  only on the  basis of
          safety  and engineering analysis of the access route."  23 C.F.R.
            658.19 (i)(2)(A).  It is  apparently the Association's position
          that   this    provision   represents   a    controlling   agency
          interpretation  of  the  "reasonable  access"  provision  of  the
          Surface Transportation Systems  Act of 1982 to which deference is
          required  under the  Chevron doctrine.   We  reject this  belated
                               _______
          suggestion.

               First,  the   ordinance  and  order  in  this  case  do  not
          "deny . . .  access to  the  terminal";  they  impose  reasonable
          restrictions  upon it,  as  the statute  itself clearly  permits.
          This is no more an outright denial of access than a detour around
                                      ______
          a school zone  or a  bridge raised for  maritime commerce  during
          rush hour.  Nor does the regulation itself even purport to define
          "reasonable  access" as  that term  is used  in the  statute; the
          quoted provision is one  element in a check list of  elements for

          state review processes to be established under the regulations.

               Indeed,  if  the regulation  were  read  as the  Association
          intends,  there  would  be  a  very serious  question  about  its
          validity.  As explained  in the panel opinion, the  original 1982
          statute did  not even  arguably impose the  requirement that  all
          reasonable restrictions on  access be based solely on safety; and
          whatever  the   precise  purpose  of  the   1984  amendment  that
          emphasized that  safety regulations  could be imposed  on certain
          tractor-trailers, a drastic recasting of the original "reasonable
          access"  provision is  nowhere  suggested.   Even under  Chevron,
                                                                   _______
          deference to an administrative interpretation is not unlimited.

               Second,  the implications  of the  suggested reading  of the
          regulation,  like the  suggested  reading of  the statute,  weigh
          heavily against it.  There is no federal regime of  zoning or use
          restrictions  that applies  to terminals,  like the  one in  this
          case,  located miles from  the interstate highway  system.  Thus,
          the Association's reading of the statute and the regulation would
          mean that  no one--neither the federal government, nor the states
          and localities--would have the power to carry on this traditional
          function of government.

               It would be  remarkable enough for Congress to  determine to
          transfer such authority  sub silentio from  the states and  local
                                   ____________
          governments  to federal  authorities  or for  it  to empower  the
          Department of Transportation to make such a  shift by regulation.
          What is  to us almost inconceivable is  that Congress effectively
          abolished  anyone's  authority  to impose  reasonable  non-safety
                     ______
          based  restrictions on access to such terminals.  The notion that
          trucking terminals have been  completely exempted from regulation
          that affects every other kind of business in the United States is
          difficult to take seriously.

               The petition for rehearing is denied.
                                             ______