[29 Pa.B. 2460]
[Continued from previous Web Page] Comment: Representative Cappabianca reviewed proposed § 6.6(d) and took issue with the language in that subsection requiring that a newly-installed or repaired commercial weighing and measuring device be removed from commercial use if the Department (whether through one of its State inspectors or through county or city sealers acting pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the Department) is unable to complete an inspection of that device within 15 days of the installation or repair. The commentator characterized this language as punishing one entity for the inactivity of another.
Response: Although the commentator's point is well taken, the Department does not elect to revise § 6.6(d) for the reasons which follow.
Section 6.6 attempts to strike a balance among the interests of the Department, the public and those who use weighing and measuring devices in commerce. New or repaired commercial weighing and measuring devices should be inspected within a reasonable time to ensure their accuracy. At the same time, the Department cannot always dispatch an inspector to immediately inspect the device. Overlaying these considerations is the fact that the act is essentially a consumer protection statute. When the interests of consumers clash with those of users of commercial weighing and measuring devices, the Department is inclined to compromise to the extent practicable and resolve the ultimate issues in favor of the consumer.
The Department believes it a reasonable compromise to establish a 15-day period within which to accomplish the required inspection. The current regulation on this subject (which is rescinded in the final-form regulations) is in § 35.3. That section allowed the use of an uninspected new weighing or measuring device for 5 days and an uninspected repaired weighing or measuring device for 10 days. To the extent § 6.6(d) extends those use periods to a uniform 15 days, it constitutes a benefit to those who use commercial weighing and measuring devices in commerce. The Department believes its responsibility to consumers requires there be some point beyond which an uninspected new or repaired weighing and measuring device must be removed from commercial use, regardless of whether the failure to conduct the inspection in a timely manner is the fault of the Department.
Since the Department had only occasional difficulty in meeting the previous 5-day and 10-day inspection deadlines, it is anticipated there will be very few, if any, instances where a required inspection can not be conducted within the 15-day period.
Comment: IRRC suggested the insertion of a comma after the term ''uninspected'' in proposed § 6.6(d).
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion and has implemented it in the final-form regulations.
Comment: IRRC suggested proposed § 6.6(d) be revised to establish a requirement that a seller, installer, servicer or repairer of commercially used weighing and measuring devices notify the Department when a particular device is taken out of commercial use.
Response: The Department agrees that it would be useful in allocating the Department's inspection resources to know when a particular commercial weighing and measuring device is taken out of service. The Department believes that the entity in the best position to provide this information is the owner or user of the device. These owners or users are required to register their devices under § 7.3 (relating to requirement: registration of devices by owners). In response to this comment the Department has added § 7.3(c). The new subsection will require a person who registers a commercially used weighing and measuring device with the Department to notify the Department within 30 days of the date the device is removed from commercial use.
Comment: The BSC noted that proposed § 6.7 (relating to expiration/renewal of registration) would require a registered seller, installer, servicer or repairer of commercially used weights and measures to maintain current verification from the State Metrology Laboratory that the field standards used by that person are accurate. The BSC believes this provision contradicts proposed § 6.3(a).
Response: The Department does not believe there is an inconsistency between the standards in §§ 6.3(a) and 6.7. Both sections reference the requirement that a seller, installer or repairer of commercially used weighing and measuring devices maintain field standards that have been tested for accuracy.
Comment: The BSC asked whether proposed Chapter 7 (relating to registration and report of inspection of commercial weighing and measuring devices) was necessary, and whether it could be deleted from the final-form regulations.
Response: The subject matter of Chapter 7 is necessitated by section 4114 of the act, which requires the Department to: ''. . . establish, by regulation, a program requiring the registration and reporting of inspection and testing of weighing and measuring devices which are required to be inspected on an annual basis in accordance with section 4112 . . .'' of the act.
Comment: The BSC suggested that proposed § 7.1 (relating to purpose) be revised to include timing devices, UPC scanning systems, PLU devices and other devices within the weights and measures described in that section. The BSC suggested this expanded explanation of what constitutes a weighing and measuring device be set forth throughout the final-form regulations.
Response: The Department believes the definition of the term ''weights and measures'' in § 2.1 is adequate to convey the meaning of the term throughout the document.
Comment: The BSC reviewed proposed § 7.3 and asked how the owner of a weighing or measuring device that is required to be registered with the Department would be made aware of this obligation. The BSC suggested the Department make an outreach effort through the media to accomplish this notification.
Response: The Department accepts this comment and will make the media outreach effort suggested by the BSC. In addition, the Department will work with industry groups, such as the Pennsylvania Retailers Association, to disseminate information regarding the registration requirement. Also, registered sellers, installers and servicers of commercially used weights and measures will be of some assistance in notifying their customers of the reporting requirements in Chapter 7. The Department will also use reports of the installation and repair of commercially used weights and measures to assemble a database of persons who own commercially-used weighing and measuring devices, and will use this information to remind device owners of their registration obligations.
Comment: Representative Cappabianca encouraged the Department to quickly develop the standardized weighing or measuring device registration form referenced in proposed § 7.5(a) (relating to registration process).
Response: The Department has already developed the form referenced by the commentator, and is in the process of distributing them. The Department may yet make further refinements to the form in an effort to make it more user-friendly.
Comment: IRRC suggested proposed § 7.5 be revised to clearly identify those persons who are required to register commercially used weighing and measuring devices, and recommended that this be accomplished by inserting a new subsection (a) and redesignating subsequent subsections. IRRC also suggested proposed § 7.5(a) be revised by inserting the word ''approved'' before ''weighing or measuring device registration form.'' The PWSC also took note of the ambiguity of this proposed section, and asked for clarification as to whether it is the device seller's responsibility or the device owner's responsibility to register.
Response: Although the Department believes § 7.3 (relating to requirement: registration of devices by owners) clearly states that owners of commercially used weighing and measuring devices are responsible to register these devices, it has restated this in § 7.5(a).
Comment: IRRC reviewed proposed § 8.3 (relating to training with respect to individual types of weighing and measuring devices) and suggested the title of that section be revised to more accurately reflect its contents. The title IRRC recommended was ''Training and certification with respect to individual types of weighing and measuring devices.''
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion, and has redesignated § 8.3 accordingly.
Comment: IRRC recommended proposed § 8.4 (relating to prior training) be revised to require the persons described in that section to register with the Department or obtain certification from the Department.
Response: The Department accepts this comment, and has revised § 8.4 to require the submission of proof of course completion.
Comment: IRRC suggested proposed § 8.5 (relating to supplemental or refresher training) be revised by replacing the word ''adequate'' with the phrase ''a reasonable number of.''
Response: The Department has implemented this suggestion in § 8.5.
Comment: Proposed § 9.5(b)(4) (relating to application for public weighmaster's license) would require a person to verify two items in an application for a weighmaster's license. First, the applicant would have to verify that the scales on which the applicant would conduct public weighing were the license issued belong to a type of weighing and measuring device approved by the Department in accordance with Chapter 10 (relating to device type approval). Second, the applicant would have to verify that the scales were approved for use by a weights and measures officer of the Commonwealth as of the date of application. The BSC asked how the applicant would have these two pieces of information.
Response: The Department revised § 9.5(b)(4) in response to this comment. The requirement that an applicant verify that the scale to be used in public weighing is of a type approved by the Department has been deleted, but the requirement the scale have a current inspection has been retained. The Department would have a record of whether the particular scale is of a type of weighing and measuring device approved by the Department, thereby obviating the need for an applicant to confirm this. A State inspector, county sealer or city sealer who conducts an inspection of a weighing and measuring device under authority of the act must report that inspection to the Department. In most instances this will allow the Department to cross check to determine whether the inspection is current.
Comment: IRRC suggested that the clarity of proposed § 9.5(d) and (e) would be improved if those subsections were revised to make reference to a ''completed'' application.
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion, and has implemented it in § 9.5(d) and (e).
Comment: IRRC noted that proposed § 9.5(e)(2) and (3) does not establish deadlines within which the actions described in those paragraphs are to occur, and suggested deadlines be inserted in the final-form version of these provisions.
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion in part and rejects it in part. Section 9.5(e)(2) provides that the Department will suspend its review of a public weighmaster's license application if the application is incomplete, illegible or otherwise deficient. Since the provision also requires the Department to apprise the applicant of the nature of the problem with the application, the Department does not believe it necessary to prescribe a particular time period within which the problem must be corrected. The onus is on the applicant to rectify the problem. The consequences of failure to rectify the problem are borne by the applicant. This should motivate an applicant to act within a reasonable time to rectify any problem with the application.
With respect to § 9.5(e)(3), the Department agrees with IRRC and has inserted language requiring that--in the event the Department refers an application to a county sealer or city sealer for the report described in that paragraph--the report be completed and returned to the Department within 30 days.
Comment: The BSC noted that proposed § 9.10(b)(7) (relating to weighmaster's certificate) would require a weighmaster's certificate to express weights in avoirdupois pounds. The BSC asked whether this language would prohibit weights from being expressed in tons. The BSC suggested the Department delete this paragraph or be more specific.
Response: The referenced paragraph restates a requirement imposed under section 4152(7) of the act. Weights must be expressed in avoirdupois pounds, rather than tons. Most--if not all--scales in commercial use in this Commonwealth reflect weight in pounds rather than tons.
Comment: The BSC noted that proposed § 9.10(d) would require a weighmaster's certificate form consist of an original marked ''Customer's copy'' and the two remaining copies marked ''Void--Customer do not accept.'' The BSC asked whether existing weighmaster's certificate forms would have to be discarded and requested the reason for the requirements of this subsection.
Response: The requirements imposed by this subsection are not new. The current regulation in § 3.13(b) (relating to ownership of specific items required) imposes this exact requirement. Section 9.10(d) merely restates the current regulatory requirement. For this reason, the requirements of § 9.10 should not necessitate the replacement of current weighmaster's certificate forms. In addition, the requirement that the duplicate copies that are not ''Customer's copies'' be marked ''Void--Customer Do Not Accept'' helps prevent fraudulent transactions.
Comment: Proposed § 9.11(b) (relating to issuing a public weighmaster's certificate) required a licensed public weighmaster to use scales that are of a type approved by the Department and that have been inspected as required under the act. The BSC asked how a licensed public weighmaster is expected to know that scales meet these requirements.
Response: As stated in response to a previous comment, scales that are of a type of weighing and measuring device approved by the Department are required to be clearly, conspicuously and permanently marked to reflect this fact. This requirement appears in § 10.8(a) (relating to marking of approved devices). In addition, a State inspector, county sealer or city sealer who conducts an inspection of a weighing and measuring device under authority of the act must report that inspection to the Department in accordance with § 7.4(a) and affix a seal to the device in accordance with section 4119 of the act. These markings, reports or seals should be of assistance to the licensed public weighmaster in meeting the requirements of § 9.11(b).
Comment: The BSC asked why the Department feels it necessary to impose the requirement that a licensed public weighmaster issue weighmaster's certificates in consecutive order of the serial numbers printed on them. This requirement appears in § 9.11(c).
Response: The Department requires licensed public weighmasters to retain copies of every weighmaster's certificate issued for 2 years. This requirement appears in § 9.12 (relating to retention and inspection of certificates). The requirement that certificates be issued in serial order should make it easier for the Department to detect fraudulent records. It should also make it more difficult for a dishonest licensed public weighmaster to defraud a customer.
Comment: Representative Cappabianca recommended the phrase ''made out in'' in proposed § 9.11(d) be replaced with ''completed with.'' IRRC offered the same comment.
Response: The Department accepts the recommendation and has revised § 9.11(d) accordingly.
Comment: Proposed § 9.11(f) would require that a weighmaster's certificate clearly show what weights were actually determined. The BSC asked for clarification of this term.
Response: The Department agrees that the term ''clearly'' in proposed § 9.11(f) was vague, and has replaced that term with ''legibly'' in the final-form regulations. In the past, the Department has noted a rather high percentage of weighmaster's certificates that were illegible or incomplete. Section 9.11(f) sets forth a detailed explanation of the type of information required for a weighmaster's certificate to be complete.
Comment: The BSC asked whether proposed § 9.11(f) would require that a public weighmaster's certificate show the date the tare weight of a vehicle was determined if that date is different from the date of the commercial weighing.
Response: Section 9.11(f) clearly requires the date the tare weight of a vehicle is determined be reflected on the weighmaster's certificate.
Comment: The BSC asked whether it would be necessary for a weighmaster's certificate to identify all of the scales upon which weights reflected on that certificate have been determined. The BSC also asked whether scales would have to be identified if the exact scale used in the weighing is not known.
Response: Section 9.11(f) requires that all scales used in a public weighing be identified on the weighmaster's certificate. The Department believes this a reasonable requirement. If a licensed public weighmaster cannot identify the scales upon which a weight was determined, that weight should not be used on a weighmaster's certificate.
Comment: The BSC requested an explanation of proposed § 9.11(g), which described a procedure for reweighing solid fuel. The request also stated:
What happens when feed or coal cannot all be delivered: 5 ton was ordered only 7,600 pounds was left at the delivery site, the rest did not fit. By the way, how was it determined if it happened for two different types of products at two locations on one truck load? How do you document all that?Response: Section 9.11(g) essentially restates the current regulation in § 1.32(a) (relating to reweighing and issuance of certificates). The Department believes § 9.11(g) describes reweighing procedures in an understandable way. The intention of the subsection is to prevent there being two separate weighmaster's certificates with respect to a single load of solid fuel. If there were two valid weighmaster's certificates), the potential for fraud would increase. Section 9.28 (relating to reweighing and issuance of certificates) also addresses reweighing of solid fuel.
In a situation where there is a weighmaster's certificate for a load of solid fuel and the entire quantity of the fuel cannot be delivered, a new weighmaster's certificate should be issued with respect to the solid fuel delivered.
With respect to the commentator's question regarding two or more types of solid fuel on the same truck, a separate weighmaster's certificate would be required with respect to each type of solid fuel. This is clarified in § 9.21 (relating to weighmaster's certificate required).
Comment: The BSC reviewed proposed § 9.11(h) and asked how owners of scales upon which licensed public weighmasters conduct public weighing would know of their obligation to retain copies of weighmaster's certificates for 2 years.
Response: The requirements of this section are not new. Section 9.11(h)(2) essentially restates the 2-year record retention requirement in the current regulation in § 3.14 (relating to duties of the weighmaster). In addition, the Department provides each weighmaster with a booklet describing--among other topics related to the duties of a licensed public weighmaster--the public weighmaster's obligation to retain records.
Comment: IRRC reviewed proposed § 9.23 (relating to certificate affecting weighing requirements) and recommended that subsections (a) and (d) be rewritten into several shorter sentences. IRRC stated that this revision would add clarity.
Response: The Department accepts the recommendation, and has revised § 9.23 accordingly.
Comment: IRRC suggested proposed § 9.24 (relating to limitations of certificate for anthracite) be revised by rewriting subsection (a) into several shorter sentences and adding the word ''authorized'' before the word ''officer'' in the Certificate of Quality in that subsection.
Response: The Department agrees that implementation of these suggestions would add clarity to the final-form regulations, and has revised that document accordingly.
Comment: IRRC noted that proposed § 9.25 (relating to responsibilities of weighmasters and shippers) does not clearly delineate a difference between the responsibilities of weighmasters and shippers. If no difference exists, IRRC would favor combining subsections (a) and (b). If there are substantive differences, IRRC recommends they be clarified.
Response: The Department accepts this comment and has revised § 9.25 by deleting any requirements or responsibilities with respect to shippers.
Comment: IRRC suggested several revisions to proposed § 9.26 (relating to certificate of special transportation). First, IRRC suggested the word ''transporting'' be inserted before the word ''truck'' in subsection (a)(2) and before the word ''vehicle'' in subsection (a)(4). Second, IRRC suggested subsection (b) be rewritten and divided into shorter sentences for clarity.
Response: The Department accepts these suggestions and has implemented them in the final-form regulations.
Comment: IRRC reviewed proposed § 9.28(a) (relating to reweighing and issuance of certificates) and suggested the third sentence be revised by replacing ''may'' with ''shall'' and ''it'' with ''a weighmaster certificate.'' IRRC offered the opinion this change would promote clarity.
Response: The Department accepts these suggestions, and has implemented them in the final-form regulations.
Comment: IRRC suggested proposed § 9.29 (relating to reciprocity with New York) be rewritten for improved clarity.
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion, and has revised § 9.29 accordingly.
Comment: Proposed § 10.2 (relating to prohibition with respect to unapproved devices) would prohibit the manufacture, use or sale of types of commercial weighing and measuring devices that have not been approved by the Department. The BSC asked whether failure to comply with this provision would carry a penalty.
Response: Section 4191 of the act (relating to offenses and penalties) provides for criminal and civil penalties with respect to violations of these final-form regulations. Criminal prosecutions may be brought as summary offenses or misdemeanors of the third degree--depending on whether the violator has had prior violations. Civil penalties may range to $10,000.
Comment: With respect to the previous comment, the BSC also asked what would happen to existing homemade scales and scales already marked by the Department in accordance with § 10.8 (relating to marking of approved devices). The BSC also wanted to know how engineering firms would be informed they could no longer sell homemade scales in this Commonwealth.
Response: The Department is not aware of any of its State inspectors having approved any ''homemade scales'' for commercial use in the Commonwealth. If the Department becomes aware of a scale that is not of a type approved in accordance with Chapter 10, it will promptly have the scale removed from commercial use.
With respect to the question of whether engineering firms would be informed they could no longer sell homemade scales in this Commonwealth, the Department responds that it is aware of only one scale manufacturer located in this Commonwealth, and that the manufacturer will be informed of the requirements of the final-form regulations.
Comment: The BSC reviewed proposed § 10.3 (relating to general standard for approval by the department), and offered the following comment:
Who makes the judgment call out in the field, when determining what is ''reasonably permanent''? Is this saying that I can make homemade levers, sell non-NTEP equipment, sell and make one of a kind devices as long as it ''is reasonably permanent?'' This is a double standard and must be rewritten to eliminate ''anything goes if it turns out okay.''Response: The use of homemade parts in the repair of a commercially used weighing and measuring device of a type approved by the Department would result in that device being converted into something other than a device of a type that had been approved. The Department stands by the device type approval procedures in Chapter 10. Section 10.3 establishes a general standard. Sections 10.5 and 10.6 (relating to meeting the general standard for approval and application and review, respectively) provide a more detailed explanation of the information and certifications the Department may require as a prerequisite to approving a particular type of weighing or measuring device.
Comment: IRRC suggested the Department revise proposed § 10.3 to set forth more precise standards under which the Department would consider approval of types of weighing and measuring devices.
Response: The Department is not inclined to implement this suggestion. The standard in § 10.3 is the same general standard prescribed under section 4170 of the act (relating to approval of types of weights and measures and weighing and measuring devices). The Department believes § 10.5 (relating to meeting the general standard for approval) expands on this general standard and provides a precise explanation of the documentation necessary for device type approval. That section requires the Department to approve a device type where either the NIST or NCWM has issued a certificate of conformance for that type. The standard is less precise with respect to UPC scanning systems and PLU devices, since neither NIST nor NCWM issues certificates of conformance for these devices.
Comment: Senator Madigan offered the comment that UPC scanning systems and PLU devices are not weighing and measuring devices, and recommended that proposed § 10.5(c) (relating to meeting the general standard for approval--UPC scanning systems and PLU devices) be deleted for this reason.
Response: Although the Department agrees that neither UPC scanning systems nor PLU devices weigh or measure as part of their normal function, these systems and devices are included in the definition of ''weights and measures'' in section 4102 of the act. In summary, UPC scanning system and PLU device technologies allow a store to maintain a computerized database of each item in its inventory--and its corresponding price. When a consumer purchases an item from that inventory, a code number is scanned or manually entered into the system and the resulting sales receipt identifies the item and its corresponding price.
Comment: The BSC commented that it is internally inconsistent for the Department to require compliance with both the general standards for device type approval in § 10.3 and the more specific standards in § 10.5. This requirement appears in proposed § 10.6(d) (relating to application and review). IRRC also raised this comment.
Response: The Department rejects this comment. There is no inconsistency between the general standards in § 10.3 and the more specific standards in § 10.5.
Comment: The PWSC reviewed proposed § 10.6 and asked whether the Department would accept National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) certificates as sufficient evidence of suitability for use in commercial weighing applications. If the Department would not accept these certificates, the commentator requested the Department explain its reasoning.
Response: The Department will accept the NTEP certificates as proof that a particular type of weighing and measuring device is acceptable for commercial use. Section 10.5(a) provides that the Department will approve types of weighing and measuring devices that have been approved by the NTEP. Section 10.6(b)(3) also refers to the NTEP certificates as being acceptable documentation a device type should be approved.
Comment: IRRC recommended proposed § 10.6(a) be revised by substituting the word ''request'' for the word ''obtain,'' inserting the word ''approved'' before the word ''application'' and deleting the second sentence.
Response: The Department has implemented these recommendations in § 10.6(a).
Comment: The BSC also commented that in implementing proposed § 10.6(d) the Department should take pains to have all of the relevant information before it prior to granting device type approval, since--once granted--device type approval would be difficult to rescind.
Response: The Department agrees with this comment, and will be prudent in granting device type approval.
Comment: IRRC recommended proposed § 10.7(a)(3) (relating to certificate of approval) be revised for greater clarity.
Response: The Department has implemented this recommendation in § 10.7(a)(3).
Comment: Representative Cappabianca suggested proposed § 10.8(b) (relating to marking of approved devices) be revised to require the posting or display of the device type approval certificates referenced in that subsection. The commentator stated that this requirement would prevent duplicate inspections.
Response: The Department believes State inspectors, county sealers and city sealers responsible for inspecting UPC scanning systems and PLU devices will know whether a particular system or device is of a type approved by the Department, since the Department is the entity that issues device type approval and will distribute its list of approved device types to these persons.
Comment: The BSC reviewed proposed § 10.10 (relating to fees) and noted that the State Metrology Laboratory could charge an applicant for device type approval for testing incidental to review of the application. The commentator expressed apprehension that this testing would be less thorough than the NIST or NCWM device type testing.
Response: The primary purpose of this section is to ensure that taxpayers' dollars do not have to pay for testing conducted by the State Metrology Laboratory in reviewing applications for device type approval. It is not the intention of the Department to create a lower approval standard than would be prescribed by the NIST or NCWM for device type approval. Instead, the Department believes it important to have some procedure in place by which it can review devices that have not yet obtained NIST or NCWM approval.
Comment: IRRC offered the general observation that throughout the proposed rulemaking the Department has broad provisions requiring other information deemed relevant by the Department or other information the Department might reasonably require, and suggested an effort be made to more specifically articulate the type of information the Department might require. IRRC noted this type of language in proposed §§ 5.8(b)(7), 6.4(b)(9), 6.5(b)(8), 9.7(7), 10.6(b)(7) and 10.7(a)(5).
Response: The Department implemented IRRC's suggestion by clarifying the referenced provisions.
Comment: IRRC offered the suggestion the Department revise the proposed rulemaking to make more extensive use of gender-neutral language. IRRC noted proposed §§ 6.5(d), 7.5(a), 9.6(b), 9.8, 9.10(a), 9.11(a) and 9.26(a) as sections in need of revision.
Response: The Department accepts this suggestion and has revised the corresponding sections of the final-form regulations accordingly.
Fiscal Impact
Commonwealth
The final-form regulations will have some fiscal impact upon the Commonwealth. The Department will require additional personnel to assist in administering the certification, registration, inspection and enforcement provisions of the act. Although the need for these additional employes is driven by the act, rather than the final-form regulations, the Department estimates it will need 2 additional office personnel, at an estimated total cost of $100,000 per year, to meet this obligation. The Department may also require additional field personnel, but is not certain whether this will be necessary. The need for additional field personnel will depend on the extent to which county sealers, city sealers, the CEWMs and private certification programs perform inspections the Department would otherwise be required to perform under the act.
Political Subdivisions
The final-form regulations will not impose appreciable costs upon political subdivisions. Although a county or city that agrees to perform required inspections under a memorandum of understanding with the Department must ensure that its county sealers or city sealers are adequately trained and certified to inspect the types of weights and measures they intend to inspect, this training is not expected to be costly. The Department will offer training for free or at cost to the extent practicable. In addition, section 4123 of the act (relating to city and county standards and equipment) allows counties and cities to charge fees to defray expenses that are incidental to the performance of their inspection duties.
Private Sector
The final-form regulations might result in some cost to a person who seeks to become a CEWM or a certified UPC/PLU inspector but who has not yet taken the training the final-form regulations would require.
The final-form regulations will cost a business that elects to hire a CEWM to perform an inspection whatever fee that inspector charges. Similarly, a business that has a certified UPC/PLU inspector working as part of a private certification program conduct an inspection of its UPC scanning systems or PLU devices might be assessed a fee for this service. As stated, section 4123 of the act allows counties and cities to charge fees to defray expenses that are incidental to the performance of their inspection duties. Since the number of businesses that will use these inspection alternatives is unclear, and inspection fee amounts are at the discretion of the inspector, the Department cannot offer a realistic estimate of the total costs involved.
Although the Department intends to offer some initial training for free or at cost, its ultimate intention is to allow industry groups or for-profit training providers to undertake a greater role in providing training.
General Public
The final-form regulations will impose no costs and have no fiscal impact upon the general public.
Paperwork Requirements
The final-form regulations will result in an increase in the amount of paperwork handled by the Department. In addition, a person conducting an inspection of a commercial weighing or measuring device under authority of the act could be required to generate and file an inspection report form with respect to each establishment inspected.
Contact Person
Further information is available by contacting the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Ride and Measurement Standards, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408, Attention: Charles Bruckner, Director, or by telephoning Mr. Bruckner at (717) 787-8744.
Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on September 29, 1998, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking to IRRC and to the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Standing Committees on Agriculture and Rural Affairs for review and comment.
In compliance with section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, the Department also provided IRRC and the Committees with copies of all comments received, as well as other documentation. In preparing these final-form regulations, the Department has considered all comments received from IRRC, the Committees and the public.
Under section 5.1(d) of the Regulatory Review Act, these final-form regulations were deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees on April 6, 1999. Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on April 8, 1999, and approved the final-form regulations.
Findings
The Department of Agriculture finds that:
(1) Public notice of its intention to adopt the regulations encompassed by this order has been given under sections 201 and 202 of the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201 and 1202), and regulations thereunder, 1 Pa. Code §§ 7.1 and 7.2.
(2) A public comment period was provided as required by law and the comments received were considered.
(3) The modifications that were made to final-form regulations in response to comments received do not enlarge the purpose of the proposed rulemaking.
(4) The adoption of final-form regulations in the manner provided in this order is necessary and appropriate for the administration of the authorizing statute.
Order
The Department of Agriculture, acting under authority of the authorizing statute, orders the following:
(a) The regulations of the Department, 70 Pa. Code, are amended by: 1) Deleting §§ 1.1, 1.11--1.14, 1.21, 1.31--1.33, 1.41, 3.1, 3.2, 3.11--3.14, 35.1--35.3, 39.1--39.20 and Appendix A; by
2) Amending § 21.1; and by
3) Adding §§ 2.1, 2.2, 4.1--4.17, 5.1--5.16, 5.21--5.23, Appendix A, 6.1--6.7, 7.1--7.5, 8.1--8.5, 9.1--9.12, 9.21--9.29, 10.1--10.10 and 21.3 to read as set forth in Annex A.
(b) The current statement of policy of the Department of Agriculture, 70 Pa. Code Chapter 39 (relating to interim guidelines for the certification of inspectors of commercially used universal product code scanning systems and price look up devices--statement of policy) is hereby deleted.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture shall submit this order and Annex A to the Office of General Counsel and to the Office of Attorney General for approval as required by law.
(d) The Secretary of Agriculture shall certify this order and Annex A and deposit them with the Legislative Reference Bureau as required by law.
(e) This order shall take effect upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
SAMUEL E. HAYES, JR.,
Secretary(Editor's Note: For the text of the order of the Independent Regulatory Review Commission relating to this document, see 29 Pa.B. 2195 (April 29, 1999).)
Fiscal Note: 2-111. (1) General Fund; (2) Implementing Year 1998-99 is $100,000; (3) 1st Succeeding Year 1999-00 is $103,000; 2nd Succeeding Year 2000-01 is $106,000; 3rd Succeeding Year 2001-02 is $109,000; 4th Succeeding Year 2002-03 is $113,000; 5th Succeeding Year 2003-04 is $116,000; (4) Fiscal Year 1997-98 $1,256,000; Fiscal Year 1996-97 $1,196,000; Fiscal Year 1995-96 $1,264,000; (7) General Government Operations; (8) recommends adoption.
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
