NOTICES

INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION

Notice of Comments Issued

[35 Pa.B. 3738]

   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 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final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.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 Period	IRRC Comments Issued
16A-6210	State Board of Examiners of Nursing    Home Administrators Biennial Renewal Fees 35 Pa.B. 2402 (April 23, 2005)	5/23/05	6/22/05
16A-618	State Board of Landscape Architects General Revisions 35 Pa.B. 2404 (April 23, 2005)	5/23/05	6/22/05
16A-608	State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers,    Dealers and Salespersons Protest Proceedings 35 Pa.B. 2408 (April 23, 2005)	5/23/05	6/22/05
16A-4512	State Board of Cosmetology Biennial Renewal Fee Increase 35 Pa.B. 2411 (April 23, 2005)	5/23/05	6/22/05

State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators Regulation #16A-6210 (IRRC #2469)

Biennial Renewal Fees

June 22, 2005

   We submit for your 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 State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on May 23, 2005. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.

Section 39.72. Fees.--Fiscal impact; Protection of public health, safety and welfare; Reasonableness; Need.

   The proposed regulation will increase the biennial renewal fee by 175 percent. Commentators contend this increase will be a significant deterrent for licensees to renew and stay in the profession and will dissuade newcomers from seeking licensure and entry into the profession. Both entry and retention in the field of nursing home administration appear to be in decline. The Preamble cites this decline as one of the reasons for the increase by noting that 400 licensees have decided not to renew over the past five years. We have three concerns.

   First, why is it necessary to increase the fee to a level that goes beyond erasing the current deficit to meet projected expenditures over a decade? We appreciate the Board's concern for balancing costs with income over a longer timeframe. However, given the fluctuations in the profession and the negative impact a fee increase of this proportion is bound to have, the Board should consider raising fees only in the amount needed to resolve deficits in the short term. The fee can be raised incrementally as expenses increase.

   Second, as an alternative to the proposed regulation, fee increases could be phased in over a specific timeframe. This approach would have a less drastic economic impact on licensees and would also allow the Board to adapt to changes in the number of licensees and enforcement activity.

   Third, the Board did not provide any information regarding the fiscal impact of the increase on licensees. When it submits the final-form regulation, the Board should identify the financial and economic impacts of the regulation on individual licensees. Given the recent decline in the number of licensees, the Board should consider the potential impacts on the profession and the facilities that licensees administer. If the decline continues, will a steep fee increase have a negative impact on long-term care facilities and their ability to maintain and protect the health, safety and welfare of their residents?

State Board of Landscape Architects Regulation
#16A-618 (IRRC #2470)

General Revisions

June 22, 2005

   We submit for your 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 State Board of Landscape Architects (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on May 23, 2005. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.

1.  Section 15.2. Board proceedings and meetings.--Clarity; Need.

   The Board is amending Subsection (b) to state that meetings ''may'' be conducted using Robert's Rules of Order. If the use of Robert's Rules of Order is no longer required, the second sentence in Subsection (b) should be deleted.

2.  Section 15.14. Retention of documents.--Reasonableness.

   The Board is deleting the provision which allows applicants to submit notarized copies of original documents for Board review. According to the preamble, the Board believes that in evaluating an applicant for licensure, an original document is the best display of the applicant's work.

   We note that the first sentence of this subsection gives the Board discretion to retain any documents submitted with an application. However, an applicant may want to have his or her original work products returned. The Board should amend this section to provide that original work products will be returned to the applicant. The Board could copy the documents before returning them if it wants to retain them as a permanent part of the application file.

3.  Section 15.16. References.--Reasonableness; Clarity.

   The Board has added a sentence to Subsection (b) which states, ''The Board will return completed reference forms sent by the applicant.'' According to the preamble, the intent of this provision is to require reference forms to be submitted to the Board directly from the person providing the reference. The applicant may not forward the completed forms to the Board. As written, this sentence does not clearly reflect the Board's intent. We suggest the Board amend this provision to state that it ''will not accept'' completed references sent by the applicant.

4.  Section 15.18. Certification.--Clarity.

   The Board is deleting Subsection (b) because the temporary certificate is no longer necessary. According to the preamble, once a license is approved, it is automatically active and the notification of approval will be listed on the Board's website. The licensee will receive the permanent licensure certificate approximately two weeks after approval.

   Clarity would be improved if the Board replaced existing Subsection (b) with a provision that states that once the notification of approval is listed on the Board's website, the licensee may practice. This would eliminate any doubt about the ability to practice during the two-week period from the time the approval is placed on the website to the time the applicant receives the permanent certificate.

5.  Section 15.36. Permitted practices.--Reasonableness.

Existing Subsection (d)

   The Board is deleting existing Subsection (d) which requires the landscape architect to sign documents and if the landscape architect practices in association with others, requires his or her name to appear with the association on documents he or she does not sign. In its comments, the House Professional Licensure Committee questions if this language should be retained. We request the Board explain the purpose of deleting the signature requirements.

6.  Section 15.72. Requirement for biennial renewal.--Reasonableness.

   Subsection (b) states, ''The Board will exempt from the continuing education requirement a licensee who received a license within 2 years preceding the licensee's first application for biennial renewal.'' Replacing the word ''exempt'' with ''waive'' would better reflect the language in the Act (63 P. S. § 909.1(a)).

   In addition, allowing a blanket waiver for any licensee who was licensed within two years preceding the biennial renewal appears to be overly broad. For example, it seems that licensees who received their licenses a year or more before the renewal date would have plenty of time to complete the 10 hours of required continuing education. For licensees who were licensed within a few months of the biennial renewal, the Board could make accommodations such as reducing the required number of continuing education hours or providing a waiver. In the final-form regulation, we recommend that the Board place some restrictions on the waiver of continuing education based on the amount of time between initial licensure and the licensee's first biennial renewal period.

7.  Section 15.73. Acceptable continuing education courses.--Clarity.

   Subsection (c) references ''electronic presentations.'' Clarity would be improved by providing examples of these types of presentations.

State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salespersons Regulation #16A-608 (IRRC #2471)

Protest Proceedings

June 22, 2005

   We submit for your 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 State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salespersons (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on May 23, 2005. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.

1.  Section 19.31. Filing of papers.--Clarity.

   This section uses the term ''papers'' to describe documents that could be filed in a protest proceeding. This term lacks clarity. The Board should either define the term ''papers'' or replace it with the term ''documents'' or ''legal documents.''

2.  Section 19.36. Prehearing statements.--Implementation procedures; Clarity.

   Subsection (c), relating to sanctions, states the following: ''Failure to file a prehearing statement as required by this section and within the time specified in the scheduling order may subject a party to sanctions, including being precluded from presenting evidence.'' We have two questions.

   First, under what circumstances would the Board impose the sanctions? Second, what other sanctions could be imposed by the Board? For clarity, the Board should provide additional examples of sanctions or include a citation to a provision where sanctions are outlined.

State Board of Cosmetology Regulation
#16A-4512 (IRRC #2475)

Biennial Renewal Fee Increase

June 22, 2005

   We submit for your 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 State Board of Cosmetology (Board) must respond to these comments when it submits the final-form regulation. The public comment period for this regulation closed on May 23, 2005. If the final-form regulation is not delivered within two years of the close of the public comment period, the regulation will be deemed withdrawn.

1.  General.--Consistency with statute; Reasonableness; Clarity.

   Section 4.4 of Act 98 of 2002 deleted the requirement that a cosmetology shop manager be licensed. Accordingly, in Section 7.2 of this regulation, the Board deleted the fee for a cosmetology shop manager license. However, elsewhere in 49 Pa. Code Chapter 7, references to the licensure of a cosmetology shop manager remain.

   To be consistent with existing statute and the deletion of the fee requirement for a cosmetology shop manager's license, the Board should delete all references to a cosmetology shop manager's license from 49 Pa. Code Chapter 7 when it submits the final-form regulation.

JOHN R. MCGINLEY, Jr.,   
Chairperson

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 05-1277. Filed for public inspection July 1, 2005, 9:00 a.m.]

---

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.

---