Department of Environmental Protection v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP
102 A.3d 962
| Pa. | 2014Background
- 2008 Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act requires mine operators to report "accidents" to DEP within 15 minutes; "accident" is defined as an "unanticipated event, including any of the following" followed by 14 listed events. 52 P.S. §§ 690-104, -109.
- Emerald and Cumberland experienced ventilation-related incidents (a ventilation reversal with methane alarm; a fan outage >16 minutes) and did not notify DEP; DEP issued orders for failure to report.
- DEP issued orders to Cumberland and Amfire requiring portable fire extinguishers on "scoops," treating scoops as "off-track locomotives" under § 690-273(f); operators appealed.
- EHB denied DEP on both issues; Commonwealth Court affirmed (holding DEP could not expand the §104 list via adjudication and that scoops are not locomotives).
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide (1) whether DEP may interpret and enforce a broader "accident" definition beyond the enumerated list and (2) whether DEP may require fire extinguishers on scoops.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DEP) | Defendant's Argument (Operators) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does §104 permit DEP to treat unlisted but similar unanticipated events as reportable "accidents"? | §104's prefatory language ("unanticipated event, including any of the following") is broad; "including" enlarges, so events of same general class are reportable. | The 14-item list is exhaustive; DEP cannot expand reporting obligations absent rulemaking by the Safety Board. | Held: DEP may enforce reporting for unlisted events that are of the same general class or nature as the enumerated items; DEP acted within authority. |
| 2. May DEP rely on general enforcement powers (§§105, 501) to impose reporting obligations beyond §104? | DEP has broad power to "implement and enforce" and to issue orders to protect miner safety; enforcement can fill gaps. | Allowing DEP to create requirements via enforcement circumvents Safety Board rulemaking and lacks notice, raising due process/delegation concerns. | Held: Court resolved reporting issue on statutory-interpretation grounds (§104 breadth); it rejected the notion that DEP's enforcement role is precluded by the Safety Board's rulemaking, so DEP's actions were permissible here. |
| 3. Is a "scoop" an "off-track locomotive" (or similar vehicle) under §273(f) requiring a portable fire extinguisher? | DEP: "off-track locomotive" can reasonably include scoops; alternatively, safety-based enforcement under §501 authorizes orders. | Operators: A scoop is a single-seat bucket vehicle that does not pull/push cars or carry personnel; §273(f) lists specific vehicle types and does not include scoops. | Held: A scoop is not a locomotive/mantrip/personnel carrier under §273(f); DEP erred and exceeded authority in requiring extinguishers on scoops. |
| 4. Do DEP's actions constitute an unconstitutional delegation or vagueness? | DEP: statute provides sufficiently specific guidance and purpose; enforcement interpretation is a permissible execution of legislative policy. | Operators: Granting DEP broad "catch-all" power is an improper delegation and creates vague, unforeseeable obligations. | Held: Court rejected delegation and vagueness challenges as to §104 interpretation—statute gives adequate standards and notice; but DEP exceeded statutory bounds on vehicle-specific §273(f) requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Env. Res. v. Butler County Mushroom Farm, 454 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1982) (agency may use adjudication to address unforeseen safety issues when statute permits enforcement).
- Pa. Human Relations Comm’n v. Norristown Area Sch. Dist., 374 A.2d 671 (Pa. 1977) (administrative bodies may proceed by rulemaking or case-by-case adjudication).
- Pa. State Bd. of Pharm. v. Cohen, 292 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1972) (statute’s enumerated prohibitions limited board authority to expand category of proscribed conduct).
- Whitaker Borough v. PLRB, 729 A.2d 1109 (Pa. 1999) (agency statutory interpretations are given controlling weight unless clearly erroneous).
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1989) (ejusdem generis principle: general words limited to same class as specific enumerations).