INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION Notice of Comments Issued [33 Pa.B. 5481] Section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(g)) provides that the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) may issue comments within 30 days of the close of the Committee comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria in section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b).
The Commission has issued comments on the following proposed regulations. The agency must consider these comments in preparing the final-form regulation. The final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.
Reg. No. Agency/Title Close of the Public Comment
PeriodIRRC
Comments
Issued18-374 Department of
Transportation
Physical and Mental
Criteria, Including
Vision Standards
Relating to the
Licensing of Drivers9/22/03 10/22/03 (33 Pa.B. 4171 (August 23, 2003)) 18-385 Department of
Transportation
Vehicle Equipment
and Inspection9/22/03 10/22/03 (33 Pa.B. 4175 (August 23, 2003)) ____ Department of Transportation
Regulation No. 18-374Physical and Mental Criteria, Including Vision Standards Relating to the Licensing of Drivers October 22, 2003 We submit for consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The Department of Transportation (Department) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on September 22, 2003. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within 2 years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Section 83.2. Definitions.--Clarity.
''Aura'' is defined as ''an epileptic seizure which does not alter an individual's ability to think clearly or interfere with an individual's mechanical or sensory ability to operate a motor vehicle.'' This differs from the description of ''aura'' in the preamble. The preamble describes an ''aura'' as the physical warning many people experience prior to a seizure. The definition of ''aura'' in the final-form regulation should be amended to rectify the inconsistency between the proposed definition and the description in the preamble.
2. Section 83.3. Visual standards.--Clarity.
Subsections (a) and (b)
Under subsections (a)(1) and (b), the phrase ''less visual acuity than'' should be changed to ''visual acuity less than'' for consistency with the wording in subsection (a)(2).
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c)(1)(iii) uses the term ''freeway.'' The final-form regulation should contain a cross-reference to the definition of ''freeway'' in 75 Pa.C.S. § 102.
Subsection (c)(1)(v) states that a person's driving privilege could be limited to a certain geographic area if ''determined by the Department to be appropriate.'' Under what circumstances would the Department limit a driver to a specific geographic area? What criteria would be used to establish the boundaries of the geographic area?
3. Section 83.4. Seizure disorder.--Clarity.
The last sentence of subsection (a) states that a person who has experienced only ''an aura'' during a 6-month period will not be disqualified to drive. A strict reading of this provision would disqualify from driving a person who experienced more than one aura during the 6-month period. It is our understanding that this is not the Department's intent. Therefore, the phrase ''an aura'' should be changed to ''auras.''
4. Section 83.5. Other physical and medical standards.--Clarity.
Subsection (b)
Subsection (b)(2)(i) and (3)(i) states the following: ''The provider shall inform the patient of the prohibition against driving due to the functional impairment.'' How does the Department intend to enforce this provision against both providers and patients?
In its comments, the Pennsylvania Psychological Association (PPA) suggests that the phrase ''examination by the physician'' in subsection (b)(5) be changed to ''examination by the provider'' since psychologists as well as physicians use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The PPA's proposed revision would be consistent with the terminology used throughout subsection (b), and we suggest the Department include this revision in the final-form regulation.
In subsection (b)(5), the last sentence refers to the ''applicant's history as provided by self or others.'' (Emphasis added.) The final-form regulation should clarify who is included in ''others.''
Subsection (c)
Subsection (c) provides that a person with any of certain conditions ''may be required to undergo a special driving examination to determine driving competency.'' (Emphasis added.) What does a special driving exam entail? Under what circumstances will a special driving examination be required?
5. Miscellaneous clarity issues.
Throughout this rulemaking, the word ''physician'' and the phrase ''licensed physician'' are used interchangeably. ''Physician'' is used in §§ 83.2 (definition of ''seizure''), 83.4(a) and (c), 83.5(b)(5) and 83.6. ''Licensed physician'' is used in 83.3(c)(1), 83.4(b) and 83.5(b)(6). The term ''licensed physician'' is defined in § 83.2. For consistency, the Board should use the defined term ''licensed physician'' in the sections previously noted.
____ Department of Transportation
Regulation No. 18-385Vehicle Equipment and Inspection October 22, 2003 We submit for consideration the following comments that include references to the criteria in the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The Department of Transportation (Department) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on September 22, 2003. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within 2 years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.
1. Vehicles exempted from emission inspections--Reasonableness; Consistency with other regulations; Need; Economic impact.
The proposed regulation incorporates a visual inspection of emission control equipment into the annual safety vehicle equipment inspection for passenger cars and light trucks covered by Chapter 175, Subchapter E. The proposed regulation will apply only to the counties that are not subject to the emission inspection program under Chapter 177. Although both Chapters 175 and 177 contain the same provisions for visual inspections, the exemptions from these requirements are not the same.
Chapter 177 is the comprehensive emission inspection program for nonattainment areas as required by the Clean Air Act. Chapter 177 contains various types of exemptions from emission inspections. For example, the exemptions in § 177.101(c)(4) and (12) include ''classic, antique or collectible motor vehicles'' and ''vehicles driven less that 5,000 miles in the previous 12 months.'' Vehicles that meet any of the exemptions under § 177.101(c) are not required to have any visual inspection or emission test. On the other hand, the exemptions for owners of passenger cars in Chapter 175 are limited essentially to ''antique'' and ''specially constructed'' vehicles.
In addition to this proposed regulation, the Department is promulgating amendments to Chapter 177 in a final-omitted regulation (No. 18-384). Section 177.51(c) of the final-omitted regulation contains new provisions for ''pre-MY (model year) 1996 vehicles.'' These provisions reduce or eliminate the emission inspection requirements for pre-MY 1996 vehicles if certain conditions apply. For example, these cars will not be subject to the emission program if they represent less than 20% of the total subject vehicles in a county provided that emissions in the county are at or below levels that are in compliance with the State Implementation Plan.
The exemptions that apply to the proposed regulation are limited compared to Chapter 177. The result will be an inconsistent application of the rules. Some vehicles in attainment areas will be required to undergo visual inspections and make repairs while similar vehicles in nonattainment areas (or areas with greater pollution) will be exempt. We question why the exemptions in Chapter 177 are not being allowed for the visual inspection of emission control equipment in Chapter 175. If the exemptions will not be the same, the Department should explain the need for this more stringent implementation of the rules in less polluted areas. Additionally, the Department should provide an estimate of the compliance costs for affected vehicle owners.
2. Section 175.80. Inspection procedure.--Reasonableness; Economic impact; Consistency with other regulations; Clarity.
Equivalent aftermarket replacement component meeting the same standards
The language added to subsection (d) allows use of original vehicle equipment or ''an equivalent aftermarket replacement component meeting the same standards.'' A commentator has suggested revisions to allow aftermarket parts that meet equivalency standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB). If these parts achieve equivalent pollution reductions as prescribed by the EPA or CARB, they should be explicitly permitted by the regulation.
Inconsistent language
The visual inspection provisions in subsection (d)(2) require the inspector to reject a component if it ''. . . appears to be the wrong type for the certified vehicle configuration.'' (Emphasis added.) The phrase ''appears to be'' may allow a vehicle to be rejected based on an appearance rather than an actual problem. It is also not completely consistent with the language in Chapter 177. The phrase ''appears to be'' is used to describe ''visual inspection procedures'' in § 177.203(d) of the recently submitted final-omitted regulation. However, the final-omitted regulation retains existing language in § 177.204(4) entitled ''basis for failure'' that states:
A vehicle shall fail the visual inspection if applicable required emission control equipment specified in § 177.203(d) is not present, is not properly connected or is not the correct type for the certified equipment. (Emphasis added.)
In the final-form regulation, the Department should use similar language in § 175.80(d)(2) since the objective is to require that emission control components are present and connected.
JOHN R. MCGINLEY, Jr.,
Chairperson[Pa.B. Doc. No. 03-2124. Filed for public inspection October 31, 2003, 9:00 a.m.]
