NOTICES
Notice of Comments Issued
[39 Pa.B. 2177]
[Saturday, April 25, 2009]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. § 645.5b).
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final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.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 11-238 Insurance Department
Annual Audited Insurers' Financial Report Required3/16/09 4/15/09 39 Pa.B. 841
(February 14, 2009)7-431 Environmental Quality Board
Oil and Gas Wells3/16/09 4/15/09 39 Pa.B. 838
(February 14, 2009)
____
Insurance Department
Regulation #11-238 (IRRC #2740)
Annual Audited Insurers' Financial Report Required
April 15, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the February 14, 2009 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 Insurance Department (Department) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
General--Consistency; Reasonableness; Clarity.
The Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania (IFP) submitted a letter dated March 13, 2009, expressing overall support for the proposed regulation. In addition, the letter provided suggestions to improve clarity and consistency with nationwide standards in sections 147.3a, 147.4, 147.6 and 147.6a of the proposed regulation.
It is our understanding that the Department intends to adopt most, if not all, of the IFP's suggestions in amendments to the final-form regulation. We encourage the Department to make revisions to the regulation that improve its clarity and consistency with nationwide standards issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
____
Environmental Quality Board
Regulation #7-431 (IRRC #2742)
Oil and Gas Wells
April 15, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the February 14, 2009 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. Legislative comment.
Senator Mary Jo White, Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee
Senator White submitted comments dated March 18, 2009. Senator White raised concerns and questions relating to the relationship between the length of a proposed well and administrative costs; the methodology used to arrive at a figure representative of what it costs to review and process an ''average'' permit application; the 10% fee penalty if the final well bore length of a well exceeds the length specified in the permit application; and clarification of the provision stating ''Fees are non-refundable'' (§ 78.19(e)) in relation to the money-back guarantee program.
Representatives Tim Solobay and Brian Ellis
Representatives Solobay and Ellis submitted a joint comment dated April 1, 2009, on behalf of the Oil and Gas Caucus of the House of Representatives. They suggest that the EQB set a fee that reflects the current application fee adjusted for inflation to the 2009 levels; question the relationship that the depth of the well bore has on the complexity of reviewing an application; request the EQB more clearly define and justify the anticipated cost to operate the permit application review; and request that the final-form regulation clarify that the oil and gas permitting program does qualify under the ''money-back guarantee program.''
We will review the EQB's responses to the concerns and questions raised by Senator White, Representative Solobay and Representative Ellis as part of our consideration of the final-form rulemaking.
2. Section 78.19. Permit application fees schedule.--Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Differentiation between ''Vertical Wells,'' ''Nonvertical Wells'' and ''Marcellus Shale Wells''
Subsection (a) shows a fee schedule for three types of wells: ''Vertical Wells,'' ''Nonvertical Wells'' and ''Marcellus Shale Wells.'' The text of the proposed regulation does not specify what is a ''Vertical Well,'' ''Nonvertical Well'' and ''Marcellus Shale Well,'' or how to distinguish between them. Consequently, it is not clear how to apply the fee schedule to a well application. The regulation should define these terms.
Fees for ''Nonvertical Wells'' and ''Marcellus Shale Wells''
The fee schedules for these wells are identical in Subsections (a) and (c). The EQB should explain the need for two identical fee schedules.
Nearest foot interval
Subsections (b) and (c) state that for wells exceeding 12,000 feet, ''fees shall be rounded to the foot interval.'' We suggest more specific language stating that fees shall be rounded to the ''nearest 500 foot interval.''
ARTHUR COCCODRILLI,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 09-779. Filed for public inspection April 24, 2009, 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.
