Department of Environmental Protection v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP
29 A.3d 414
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- DEP appeals two EHB orders under the Bituminous Coal Mine Safety Act arising from alleged failures to report accidents (Emerald/Cumberland) and to provide portable fire extinguishers on scoops (Amfire/Cumberland).
- EHB held that the list of “accidents” in Section 104 is non-exhaustive and that DEP cannot expand it via enforcement actions; EHB also held scoops do not meet locomotives under Section 273(f).
- DEP argues that its enforcement powers can expand the accident list and require compliance, and that scoops fall within locomotives; the Act reserves rulemaking to the Safety Board.
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upholds EHB, affirming that DEP may not expand the accident list through adjudication and cannot impose scoops fire-extinguisher requirements absent Safety Board rulemaking.
- The decision emphasizes the statutory separation of enforcement (DEP) and rulemaking (Safety Board) powers and the need for advance notice to operators regarding what constitutes an “accident.”
- Dissent by Judge Pellegrini argues DEP has power to enforce reporting of certain unanticipated events and that the list should not be read to strictly foreclose case-by-case expansion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accident list in §104 is exhaustive. | Emerald/Cumberland: list is exhaustive; DEP cannot add events by enforcement. | Emerald/Cumberland: list non-exhaustive; DEP may expand via enforcement. | Non-exhaustive; DEP may not expand via adjudication; DEP erred. |
| Whether DEP can expand the accident list through enforcement powers absent Safety Board rulemaking. | DEP should expand through enforcement to enhance safety. | Expansion requires rulemaking by Safety Board. | DEP may not expand via enforcement; rulemaking required. |
| Whether DEP had authority under §§105 and 501 to issue the challenged orders. | DEP authority to issue orders to enforce act is broad. | Authority cannot override Safety Board rulemaking or statutory limits. | DEP lacked authority to issue those orders under §§105 and 501 as to these cases. |
| Whether scoops fall within §273(f) as locomotives requiring extinguishers. | Scoops are locomotives; must have extinguishers. | Scoops are not locomotives per definitions/industry usage. | Scoops are not locomotives; no extinguisher requirement under §273(f) for scoops. |
Key Cases Cited
- Velocity Express v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n, 853 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (defers to agency when statute ambiguous unless legislative intent frustrated)
- Norristown Area Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 473 Pa. 334 (Pa. 197-) (two methods for formulating policy: rulemaking or adjudication)
- Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 676 A.2d 711 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (statutory ambiguity and deference to agency interpretation)
- Department of Environmental Resources v. Rushton Mining Co., 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 648, 591 A.2d 1168 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1991) (distinguishes rulemaking vs. adjudicatory authority; separation of powers)
- Department v. Butler County Mushroom Farm, 499 Pa. 509, 454 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1982) (agency may issue orders to establish standards of conduct when no regulation)
- Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 448 Pa. 189, 292 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1972) (agency rulemaking vs. adjudicatory process to sanction non-regulatory grounds)