Court Opinion

ID: 9489486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:17:06.822289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:33.690015
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s conclusion that the agency’s interpretation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 5125(a)(2) as “demandpng] absolute uniformity in matters of bonding requirements,” Op. at 896, cannot be reconciled with the statutory language or structure. Op. at 894-95. Resolution of this appeal requires no more. Hence, the question of the proper standard of review of an agency’s interpretation of an express preemption statute, see Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 1735, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (distinguishing between an agency’s interpretation of the substantive meaning of a statute and the question of whether a statute is pre-emptive), remains open. See Op. at 893-94.