Tire Jockey test in Pennsylvania

2025For purposes of the Tire Jockey test, the Two-Lab Requirement was not “adopted within the agency’s granted power.” 8 “Clearly the legislature would not authorize 6 “Words and phrases” in a statute “shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). 7 BRYAN A. GARNER, GARNER’S MODERN AMERICAN USAGE: THE AUTHORITY ON GRAMMAR, USAGE, AND STYLE 918 (3d ed. 2009). 8 Tire Jockey, 915 A.2d at 1186 . [J-57-2024] [MO: McCaffery, J.] - 4 agencies to adopt binding regulations inconsistent with the applicable enabling statutes.”9 Rather

2025For purposes of the Tire Jockey test, the Two-Lab Requirement was not “adopted within the agency’s granted power.” 8 “Clearly the legislature would not authorize 6 “Words and phrases” in a statute “shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). 7 BRYAN A. GARNER, GARNER’S MODERN AMERICAN USAGE: THE AUTHORITY ON GRAMMAR, USAGE, AND STYLE 918 (3d ed. 2009). 8 Tire Jockey, 915 A.2d at 1186 . [J-57-2024] [MO: McCaffery, J.] - 4 agencies to adopt binding regulations inconsistent with the applicable enabling statutes.”9 Rather

2023Although this legal standard predates this Court’s decision in Tire Jockey, both the Agencies and several of our previous opinions refer to it as the “Tire Jockey test.” I do the same herein. 7 Snyder Bros., 198 A.3d at 1083 (Wecht, J., concurring) (citing Bucks Cnty.

2019See also MSC II, 185 A.3d at 1003 (“Absent any particularized contention tending to cast doubt upon the Agencies’ position that [the] DSEA allows for such regulations, there is little basis in the present record to believe the Agencies lacked the authority to promulgate Section 78a.59b(b).” (citation omitted)).

2018See generally Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 , 730, 83 S.Ct. 1028 , 1031, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963) (describing a return to "the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies" after the Lochner era). 2 Upon review of the record, it is my considered judgment that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness and the "particularly high measure of deference" associated with validly promulgated legislative rules.

2018See generally Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 , 730, 83 S.Ct. 1028 , 1031, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963) (describing a return to "the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies" after the Lochner era). 2 Upon review of the record, it is my considered judgment that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness and the "particularly high measure of deference" associated with validly promulgated legislative rules.

2018Id. at 36, citing Rohrbaugh v. PUC , 556 Pa. 199 , 727 A.2d 1080 , 1085 (1999) (policy allowing shutoff of utilities at tenant's request absent signed agreement from landlord authorizing service to be automatically transferred into landlord's name was not arbitrary or unreasonable because to hold otherwise would require utilities to provide service to non-ratepayer).

2018Id. at 36, citing Rohrbaugh v. PUC , 556 Pa. 199 , 727 A.2d 1080 , 1085 (1999) (policy allowing shutoff of utilities at tenant's request absent signed agreement from landlord authorizing service to be automatically transferred into landlord's name was not arbitrary or unreasonable because to hold otherwise would require utilities to provide service to non-ratepayer).