Notice of Comments Issued [40 Pa.B. 6491]
[Saturday, November 6, 2010]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 public comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria contained 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 agencies must consider these comments in preparing the final-form regulation. The final-form regulations must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.
IRRC Close of the Public Comments Reg. No. Agency/Title Comment Period Issued 16A-5718 State Board of Veterinary Medicine 9/27/10 10/27/10 Dental Procedures 40 Pa.B. 4970 (August 28, 2010) 7-460 Environmental Quality Board 9/27/10 10/27/10 Noncoal Mining Fees 40 Pa.B. 4963 (August 28, 2010)
State Board of Veterinary Medicine
Regulation #16A-5718 (IRRC #2863)Dental Procedures October 27, 2010 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 28, 2010 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.
1. Scope of Practice—Protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
This rulemaking would allow certified veterinary technicians, veterinary technician specialists and veterinary assistants (collectively referred to as licensees), under the direct supervision of a veterinarian, to perform specific dental procedures on companion animals. Commentators have questioned if the licensees are properly trained to perform some of the procedures. For example, the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA) has stated that veterinary technician specialists are not properly trained to perform ''surgical extractions.'' They have also questioned if the performance of ''dental charting'' by certified veterinary technicians and veterinary assistants crosses into the realm of diagnosis. In addition, the Vet Tech Institute has questioned if veterinary assistants are properly trained to perform all of the listed procedures.
We understand that all of the enumerated procedures for all of the licensees must be performed under the direct supervision of a veterinarian. However, for the examples listed above, we ask the Board for a further explanation of why those procedures can be safely performed by the licensees. In addition, we ask the Board to explain if there are any other safeguards in place to ensure the safety of the companion animals on which the dental procedures are performed.
2. Companion animal—Clarity.
The title of § 31.31a includes the term ''companion animal'' and the term is referenced in other sections of the rulemaking. PVMA has questioned what is meant by this term. We agree that it is unclear and suggest that it be defined in the final-form rulemaking.
____
Environmental Quality Board
Regulation #7-460 (IRRC #2864)Noncoal Mining Fees October 27, 2010 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 28, 2010 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 (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. Direct and indirect costs to the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and the private sector.
Several commentators, including Representative Sandra Major, have stated that they are aware of the budgetary problems and hardships facing the Department of Environmental Protection. However, they believe that the fee schedule being imposed, and the $2.5 million it is projected to generate, is an economic burden that Pennsylvania businesses cannot afford at this time. They are concerned that the fees could potentially force some of Pennsylvania's mine operators to close their businesses.
In the Regulatory Analysis Form submitted with the rulemaking, the Board has included the following statement: ''The Department has made every effort to use the least burdensome alternative when developing the manner of assessing fees on the industry.'' We appreciate the Board's efforts in devising a fee schedule that is the least burdensome alternative to the regulated community. However, several commentators have made suggestions on how the Board's estimated annual cost of $2.5 million to fund the nonmining coal program could be reduced. We ask the Board to consider implementing the suggestions of the commentators, thus reducing the economic impact this rulemaking will have on the regulated community.
2. Annual administration fee—Implementation procedures; Clarity.
The annual administration fee is defined under § 77.1, relating to definitions, as: ''A nonrefundable filing fee assessed on an annual basis for the cost to the Department of inspecting a permitted activity or facility in order to administer the permit.'' Subsection § 77.106(f) lists eight different types of permits that would be subject to the annual administration fee. A commentator has stated that each mining facility could have several permits. Under this rulemaking, could a mining facility be subject to more than one annual administration fee, or is the fee only applicable to the facility? This should be clarified in the final-form rulemaking.
ARTHUR COCCODRILLI,
Chairperson[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2122. Filed for public inspection November 5, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]
