NOTICES
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Comments Issued
[39 Pa.B. 7166]
[Saturday, December 19, 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final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.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 Issued16A-4616 State Board of Dentistry
EFDA Program Approval
39 Pa.B. 5916
October 10, 2009
11/9/09 12/9/09 8-14 Department of General Services
State Metrology Laboratory Fee Schedule
39 Pa.B. 5921
October 10, 2009
11/9/09 12/9/09
State Board of Dentistry
Regulation #16A-4616 (IRRC #2795)
EFDA Program Approval
December 9, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the October 10, 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 State Board of Dentistry (Board) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. Protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
The House Professional Licensure Committee has questioned whether Expanded Function Dental Assistant (EFDA) programs that have been approved by the Board should be subject to a renewal process. We believe that a renewal process would be a reasonable requirement that would ensure these programs continue to provide the education and training needed for EFDAs. This would help ensure that the public health and safety is adequately protected. We recommend that the final-form regulation address renewal of program approval.
We also question the $80 fee in Section 33.3(a) of the proposed regulation titled ''EFDA program approval application fee.'' The $80 fee is supported by the ''Fee Report Form'' included with the submittal of the proposed regulation. That form shows an estimate of a total of two hours to review an EFDA program approval application (consisting of 0.5 hour of Board administrator time and 1.5 hours to ''review and present to the full board for approval''). Proposed Section 33.117 EFDA program approval sets forth several dozen requirements that must be evaluated, including planning and assessment, institutional accreditation, program director, faculty, facilities, curriculum and demonstration of competency. The Board should explain how a two-hour review of an application that can result in approval of a program will adequately protect the public health safety and welfare.
2. Section 33.102. Professional education.—Implementation procedures; Reasonableness; Clarity.
Subsection (c)(1)(i) includes the phrase ''Board-approved EFDA program'' and Subsection (c)(1)(iii) includes the phrase ''Board-approved certification program.'' We have two concerns. First, the main goal of this rulemaking is to establish guidelines for the approval of EFDA programs, and that is accomplished through the addition of new Section 33.117, pertaining to EFDA program approval. What process is used to approve the certification programs referenced in Subsection (c)(1)(iii)? We recommend that the process be included in the final-form regulation. In the alternative, and as suggested by a commentator, has the Board considered accepting accredited certification programs instead of requiring Board approval of these programs?
Second, how would a person know if an ''EFDA program'' or a ''certification program'' has been approved by the Board? Has the Board considered listing the approved programs on its web site? We recommend that the final-form regulation include a section that states a list of approved programs can be obtained from the Board's web site. We note that Section 33.117(d) makes reference to an ''approved list,'' but does not indicate where the list can be obtained.
3. Section 33.117. EFDA program approval.—Clarity.
Subsection (b)(9) requires ''other information requested by the Board.'' This requirement is overly broad. We recommend adding the phrase ''related to the EFDA program'' or similar language to limit the scope of information required to get a program approved.
Subsection (c)(3)(viii) requires program directors to maintain ''records related to the EFDA program, including instructional objectives and course outcomes.'' This provision is vague for two reasons. First, it does not list all of the records that must be kept. Second, it does not state how long the records must be kept. To improve clarity, we recommend that the final-form regulation specify what records must be kept and for how long.
Subsection (c)(4)(iv) states ''Completed, or is in the process of completing, a course in education methodology. . . .'' The phrase ''in the process of completing'' is vague because almost any program could claim it is in the process of completing the requirement but, as written, would not have to complete the requirement. We recommend including a reasonable time limit to implement the course in education methodology.
Under Subsection (c)(5)(i), EFDA programs must provide ''adequate physical facilities and equipment.'' The term ''adequate'' is vague. How will an EFDA program know if its facilities and equipment are adequate? We recommend that more detail be included in the final-form regulation.
Subsection (c)(7)(ii)(B) ends with the phrase ''in all restorative materials.'' It appears that the word ''all'' would encompass a multitude of restorative materials. The regulation would be clearer by describing categories of restorative materials or by providing examples. Is it the Board's intent to include ''all'' restorative materials?
Subsection (c)(7)(iv)(C) states EFDA program directors are required to provide ''documentation'' of the student's competency attainment to the Board as part of the student's application for certification. The final-form regulation should specify what type of documentation will be required.
____
Department of General Services
Regulation #8-14 (IRRC #2796)
State Metrology Laboratory Fee Schedule
December 9, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the October 10, 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 Department of General Services (Department) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
Section 110.2. State Metrology Laboratory fee schedule.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Clarity.
The proposed regulation increases fees for 12 different types of testing services performed by the State Metrology Laboratory. The increases vary in size in dollar amount and percentage growth. The Preamble includes the following statement: ''The general public will benefit because the fees generated will pay for services which are now paid in part by taxpayer dollars.'' In addition, the Preamble indicates that the Department estimates the proposed regulation will generate $125,000 in revenue. However, there is no explanation of how or to what extent the revenue increase covers the actual costs of performing and administering the test services provided by the State Metrology Laboratory.
Other agencies use documents entitled ''fee report forms'' to document and explain the actual costs necessary to provide the services covered by the fees. The cost or expense could be categorized into components such as specialized equipment costs, or administrative, clerical and laboratory staff time. The submittal of the final-form regulation should be accompanied by fee report forms that explain how each fee increase covers the costs of the provided testing service.
ARTHUR COCCODRILLI,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 09-2348. Filed for public inspection December 18, 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.
