Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 246
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Requester sought Pennsylvania’s Tier II hazardous chemicals database from L&I; EPCRA classifies Tier II information as public, but RTKL requests were at issue.
- L&I denied disclosure citing RTKL Sections 708(b)(2) and (b)(3) (public safety and physical security).
- OOR issued final determination directing disclosure with confidential marks, relying on EPCRA’s public-status effect.
- L&I challenged OOR’s authority to construe federal law and argued RTKL was controlling; Requester argued EPCRA superseded RTKL.
- Court resolves whether OOR can interpret federal law for public status and whether EPCRA establishes public nature; whether RTKL 708(b) exceptions apply on remand.
- Court remands to OOR to weigh RTKL Section 708(b) exceptions after determining public status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OOR have authority to interpret federal law on public status of records? | L&I argues OOR lacks authority to construe EPCRA. | Heltzel asserts OOR must determine public nature using RTKL and federal statutes. | OOR has authority to interpret EPCRA and other federal laws. |
| Does EPCRA establish the public nature of Tier II information, superseding RTKL? | Requester argues EPCRA makes Tier II public and RTKL exceptions do not apply. | L&I contends EPCRA provides access limitations, not unconditional public status. | EPCRA does not establish public nature; RTKL access rules apply. |
| How do RTKL 3101.1 and EPCRA interact regarding access to Tier II data? | Requester says EPCRA public status governs; RTKL preemption not needed. | EPCRA access is facility-specific and includes procedural limits; RTKL limitations apply. | RTKL provisions superseded to the extent conflicting with EPCRA’s access framework; OOR to apply RTKL 708(b) on remand. |
| Are the RTKL Section 708(b) exemptions applicable to the Tier II data? | Requester argues exemptions do not apply since records are public under EPCRA. | L&I bears burden to prove exemptions under 708(b)(2)/(b)(3). | Remand to OOR to evaluate 708(b) exemptions on the current record. |
| What is the correct disposition of OOR’s final determination? | Vacate OOR determination and remand for disposition within 30 days (60 if supplementation) on the current record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (RTKL de novo review and OOR adjudicatory role)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Office of Open Records, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (scope of RTKL review)
- Bagwell v. Dep’t of Educ., 76 A.3d 81 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (OOR jurisdiction over RTKL challenges)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Express Times, 41 A.3d 977 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (OOR uses federal statutes to determine public nature)
- Fort Cherry Sch. Dist. v. Coppola, 37 A.3d 1259 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (OOR interpretation of federal law in RTKL appeals)
- Advancement Project v. Department of Transportation, 60 A.3d 891 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (OOR authority limits re: administering another statute)
- Don’t Waste Ariz. v. McLane Foods, 950 F. Supp. 972 (D. Ariz. 1997) (EPCRA public reporting framework; limitations on access)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (general principle of public-law distinction, burden of proof)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (non-commandeering principle (federalism context))
- Don’t Waste Ariz. v. McLane Foods, 950 F. Supp. 972 (D. Ariz. 1997) (EPCRA public information framework)