Court Opinion

ID: 9645812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:36:09.52694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:31.864003
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Mencer :
I respectfully dissent. I cannot reach the majority’s conclusion that lay witness testimony alone may support a conviction for causing air pollution, which is defined as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of coal dust which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
My understanding of the Air Pollution Control Act, Act of January 8, 1960, P. L. (1959) 2119, as amended, 35 P.S. §4001 et seq. (Supp. 1974-1975) (Act), indicates that, for conviction of a criminal offense, it is necessary to prove that an established standard was vio*143lated. Section 5 of the Act, 35 P.S. §4005, as amended by the Act of June 12, 1968, P. L. 163, No. 92, §5, provided, in pertinent part:
“(d) The Commission shall have the power and its duty shall be to—
“(2) Adopt rules and regulations for the control of air pollution in regions or parts thereof ....
“ (6) Establish and publish maximum quantities of air contaminants that may be permitted under various conditions at the point of use from any air contaminant source in various areas of the Commonwealth so as to control air pollution.
“(7) By rule or regulation, classify air contaminant sources, according to levels and types of emissions and other characteristics which relate to air pollution.”
I cannot accept the premise that the Legislature, in defining “air pollution” in Section 3(5) of the Act, 35 P.S. §4003(5), intended that definition to set the standard for unlawful conduct.
My view of this case is that, in the absence of a rule or regulation establishing a standard for the quantity of air contaminants permitted under various conditions, the appellant here was not in violation of the Act or Begulation 121.7 of the Bules and Begulations of the Department of Environmental Besources, 25 Pa. Code §121.7.