Source: http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pabull?file=/secure/pabulletin/data/vol36/36-21/944.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-07 18:34:12
Document Index: 340137570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 1401', '§ 745', '§ 745', '§ 18', '§ 745', '§ 745']

Volume 36 Issue 21
36 Pa.B. 2597
PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 06-944
[36 Pa.B. 2597]
7-398 Environmental Quality Board
36 Pa.B. 715 (February 11, 2006) 4/12/06 5/12/06
16A-4915 State Board of Medicine and
36 Pa.B. 1233 (March 18, 2006) 4/17/06 5/17/06
16A-4511 State Board of Cosmetology
36 Pa.B. 1229 (March 18, 2006) 4/17/06 5/17/06
16A-5716 State Board of Veterinary Medicine
Certified Veterinary Technician Specialist
36 Pa.B. 1240 (March 18, 2006) 4/17/06 5/17/06
Environmental Quality Board Regulation #7-398 (IRRC #2523)
We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the February 11, 2006 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. National v. California Emissions Standards--Economic impact; Protection of public health and effect on this Commonwealth's natural resources; Legislative review of a policy decision.
Senators Roger A. Madigan and Mary Jo White submitted a letter on March 27, 2006, expressing several concerns with the proposed regulation. Their letter expressed support for the national vehicle emissions control program known as Tier 2 (Federal Register, February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698)), as an alternative to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations referenced by the existing and proposed regulations. In addition, the Senate passed Senate Bill 1025, by a vote of 27 to 20 on February 15, 2006. This bill would revive the regulatory framework initiated in 1998 and give the automobile industry the option of complying with either the CARB regulations or Tier 2.
Commentators for the automobile industry also recommended that the EQB adopt the Tier 2 program. They claim that it is a comparable, or an even better, program for reducing air pollution. Additionally, the economic impacts on the automobile industry and consumers will not be as great as those imposed by CARB regulations.
In its response to these concerns, the EQB needs to explain why and how the CARB regulations address the issues of environmental protection and cost-effectiveness. It should demonstrate how its regulation will generate greater benefits for public health and the Commonwealth's natural resources at a cost that is affordable, reasonable and competitive with alternative regulatory approaches.
2. Section 126.412. Emission requirements.--Clarity.
The EQB indicates that Subsection (d) is intended to allow manufacturers to carry forward nonmethane organic gases (NMOG) credits fully for a three-year period without any loss of those credits each year. However, this is not clearly stated in this section. This provision should be amended to clarify the EQB's intentions.
3. Requests for information.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (b) in Sections 126.421--126.425 requires a manufacturer to provide certain types of information to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) ''upon request.'' Under what circumstances would the Department make the request? The EQB should clearly identify the type of request it will make to the manufacturers and that the request should be in writing.
4. Rental vehicles.--Implementation procedure; Reasonableness; Clarity.
The Hertz Corporation is concerned about how the CARB standards will affect the rental car industry. Does the EQB intend to require rental car companies to ensure that any car that could possibly be used in Pennsylvania comply with CARB standards or would rental car companies merely be required to have all vehicles registered in the Commonwealth comply with those standards? Department staff indicated that it is investigating potential solutions to this issue and it does not intend to impede business in the Commonwealth for the rental car industry. The EQB should clearly delineate the requirements for rental vehicles in the final-form regulation.
5. Fuel alternatives.--Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Clarity.
Commentators expressed concern with the impact of this proposed regulation on vehicles that operate on different types of fuels. Light-duty vehicles that operate on diesel are very popular. Will consumers still be able to purchase and operate these vehicles in Pennsylvania under CARB regulations? In addition, industry, federal and state leaders have recently expressed support for ''flexible fueled vehicles'' that operate on fuels with a greater percentage of ethanol which is a renewable fuel. What will be the impact of this proposed regulation on the use of ethanol?
State Board of Medicine and State Board of Osteopathic Medicine
Joint Regulation #16A-4915 (IRRC #2527)
We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the March 18, 2006 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the State Board of Medicine and the State Board of Osteopathic Medicine (Boards) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. Consistency between regulations.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
The House Professional Licensure Committee (Committee) noted in its comments that there are a number of language inconsistencies between the regulations of the State Board of Medicine and the State Board of Osteopathic Medicine. The Boards should correct these inconsistencies in the final-form regulation.
2. Section 18.503. Certification requirement.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
The Committee recommended that the Board rewrite this section to clarify its intentions. We agree.
More specifically, the Board should amend Subsection (b) to state ''Subsection (a) does not preclude:'' The Board should then also insert the word ''from'' between ''student'' and ''practicing'' in Subsection (b)(3). This suggestion also applies to Section 25.703.
3. Section 18.504. Application for certification.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (b) and Section 25.704(b) state that ''To qualify for certification, an applicant . . . may not be addicted to alcohol or hallucinogenic, narcotic or other drugs which tend to impair judgment or coordination.'' How will the Board determine that an applicant meets this requirement?
4. Section 18.505. Educational requirements.--Clarity.
Subsections 18.505(1) and 25.705(1) contain the phrase ''an accredited educational program for athletic trainers'' (Emphasis added). Section 25.707 uses the phrase ''an accredited education program.'' The defined term is ''Approved athletic training education programs.''
First, the final-form regulation should use the defined term throughout the regulation.
Second, it is unclear who is responsible for accrediting these programs. Which agencies are approved by the Board to accredit these programs?
This subsection contains the phrase ''Hold or maintain current credentialing . . . from the BOC or another credentialing body approved by the Board.'' The Board indicates that the only current credentialing body approved by the Board is the Board of Certification (BOC). How will applicants be informed if other credentialing bodies become approved by the Board in the future? A similar question applies to Section 25.705.
5. Section 18.507. Temporary certification.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
The Pennsylvania Athletic Trainers Society (PATS) indicated that the reference to CAAHEP is outdated and should be deleted. PATS also indicated that it would be the new accrediting body. The Board should delete the phrase ''accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP).'' The Board should use the defined term ''Approved athletic training education programs.''
6. Section 18.508. Renewal of certification.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
This subsection establishes a $5 charge for every month beyond the renewal date to be added to the renewal fee. The Board has indicated that this is a standard fee that is routinely charged under the Fee Act (63 P. S. § 1401-225). A cross-reference to the appropriate section of the Fee Act should be added to the final-form regulation.
We also note that this fee is not included in corresponding Section 25.708 in the State Board of Osteopathic Medicine's regulations. To be consistent, it should be added along with the appropriate cross-reference to the Fee Act.
This subsection and all of the subparagraphs under it deal with continuing education requirements and not ''Renewal of certification.'' These provisions would be clearer if included in a separate section entitled ''Continuing education requirements.'' The comparable requirements in Section 25.708 (b) should also be included in a separate section.
7. Section 18.509. Practice standards for athletic trainers.--Reasonableness; Clarity.
This subsection requires a review of the medical exam by a licensed physician. The Committee questions whether this provision should also references dentists and podiatrists since they may also refer patients. We agree, and note that the corresponding section in Chapter 25 incorporates dentists and podiatrists.
The Pennsylvania Physical Therapists Association recommends that the review of the ''written protocol'' should occur more frequently than annually. How did the Board determine that an annual review is appropriate? A similar concern applies to Section 25.709(c).
State Board of Cosmetology Regulation #16A-4511 (IRRC #2528)
We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the March 18, 2006 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the State Board of Cosmetology (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. Implementation procedures and timetables for compliance.
In a letter dated May 5, 2006, the House Professional Licensure Committee questions what the Board's policy will be if a school changed ownership and the prior owner was delinquent in obtaining accreditation. We note that the Board's response to Question 14 in the Regulatory Analysis Form states there are 158 licensed cosmetology schools in Pennsylvania and 139 of those are accredited. This implies that 19 schools are licensed, but are not yet accredited. These unaccredited schools could experience legitimate difficulty meeting the five year deadline as a result of a change of ownership, change of location or even within the accreditation process itself. The regulation should include or cross reference a provision to allow the licensee the opportunity to demonstrate good cause to the Board and request additional time to get initial accreditation.
The cross reference in Paragraph 7.111(a)(7) to Article XVIII of the Public School Code should be corrected to read 24 P. S. §§ 18-1801--18-1855.
State Board of Veterinary Medicine Regulation #16A-5716 (IRRC #2530)
We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the March 18, 2006 Pennsylvania Bulletin. Our comments are based on criteria in Section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b). Section 5.1(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(a)) directs the State Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
Section 31.38. Code of ethics for certified veterinary technicians.--Consistency with existing regulations; Clarity.
In Subsection (g), the first sentence states that a certified veterinary technician (CVT) ''may not make a false, deceptive or misleading statement or claim.'' The second sentence provides one example of such a claim or statement involving a representation that a CVT is a specialist unless he or she has the proper certification. In its comments on this proposed regulation, the House Professional Licensure Committee requested specific information on other acts that would qualify as making a ''false, deceptive or misleading statement or claim.''
In the existing provisions of Section 31.21 relating to rules of professional conduct for veterinarians, there is a list of examples of false, deceptive or misleading statements. These descriptions are found under ''Principle 5'' which is entitled ''Advertising.'' In the final-form regulation, the Board should clarify what other types of activities by CVTs would be considered as making false, misleading or deceptive statements.
The second sentence of Subsection (g) contains the words: '' . . . a Veterinary Technician Specialist or a VTS . . . .'' Neither this term nor its abbreviation appears elsewhere in the Board's existing regulations. For this reason, inclusion of the abbreviation is unnecessary and the words ''or VTS'' should be deleted. If the abbreviation is retained, the term and its abbreviation should be added to the definitions in Section 31.1 in the final-form regulation.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 06-944. Filed for public inspection May 26, 2006, 9:00 a.m.]