NOTICES
Actions Taken by the Commission
[26 Pa.B. 5289] The Independent Regulatory Review Commission met publicly at 1 p.m., Thursday, October 17, 1996, and took the following actions:
Regulation Approved:
Environmental Quality Board # 7-293: Criteria and Procedures for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Mining Activities (amends 25 Pa. Code Chapter 86, Subchapter D)
Environmental Quality Board # 7-292: Area Unsuitable for Surface Mining Activities; Squaw Run (amends 25 Pa. Code § 86.130(b))
Department of Agriculture # 2-100: Agricultural Land Conservation Assistance Grant Program (amends 7 Pa. Code Chapter 138h)
Department of Community and Economic Development # 5-61: Neighborhood Assistance Programs; Special Program Priorities and Enterprise Zone Tax Credit Program (amends 16 Pa. Code §§ 15.41b and 15.49a)
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board # 11-128: Heating Oil Tank Optional Program (adds 25 Pa. Code Chapter 975)
(Editor's Note: For the text of the regulations pertaining to this order, see 26 Pa.B. 5347 (November 2, 1996).)
Commissioners Present: John R. McGinley, Jr., Chairperson; Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman
Public meeting held
October 17, 1996Environmental Quality Board--Criteria and Procedures for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Mining Activities; Doc. No. 7-293
Order On October 25, 1995, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Environmental Quality Board (EQB). This rulemaking would amend 25 Pa. Code Chapter 86, Subchapter D. The authority for this regulation is found in sections 4.2(a) and 4.5 of the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (52 P. S. §§ 1396.4b(a) and 1396.4e); sections 3.2(a) and 6.1 of The Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act (52 P. S. §§ 30.53b(a) and 30.56a); sections 315(h)--(o) of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S §§ 691.315(h)--(o)); and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 510-20). The proposed regulation was published in the November 4, 1995 Pennsylvania Bulletin with a 60-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996.
This regulation replaces the words ''surface mining activities'' with ''surface mining operations'' while maintaining the substance of the current definition for this term. The term ''surface mining operations'' is also used throughout Subchapter D in this regulation to replace terms such as ''surface mining,'' ''surface coal mining'' and ''surface coal mining operations'' which have no existing definitions in Subchapter D. Changes in Subsection 86.122(b), which relate to the decision criteria the EQB will use in the proposed rulemaking, were deleted from this final-form regulation.
The regulation will impact persons who intend to submit petitions to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and EQB requesting that areas be designated as unsuitable for surface mining activities. According to DEP, the proposed regulation will benefit these individuals because it eliminates ambiguity and clarifies the meaning of the existing regulation. DEP has also determined that the regulation will not affect current regulatory procedures, and consequently, the regulation will not result in any cost increases to DEP or to parties filing petitions.
The following parties submitted comments on the proposed regulation: Pennsylvania Coal Association (PCA); Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; Daniel G. Roberts and Thomas L. Struthers of John Milner Associates, Architects; and Walter E. Fike, P.L.S. After the final-form regulation was submitted by EQB, PCA submitted comments concerning the definition of ''surface mining activities.''
We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. Although the proposed version of this regulation contained substantive revisions to the existing regulation, this regulation is now essentially a ''house-keeping'' measure since the substantive revisions were deleted from the final-form regulation. PCA objects to the current substance of the definition of ''surface mining activities'' in section 86.101. Its concerns go beyond the EQB's intent to simply change ''surface mining activities'' to ''surface mining operations.'' Neither the proposed nor the final-form version of this regulation contained any substantive changes to this definition. However, the preamble to the final-form regulation states that the Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) was requested ''to provide clarification of the definition in the context of the 'surface effects' of underground mining.'' The EQB indicates that when OSMRE responds, any necessary revisions to the definition will be the subject of future rulemaking. We encourage the DEP and EQB to give full consideration to PCA's concerns in the development of amendments to section 86.101.
Finally, even though the primary thrust of this rulemaking is now gone, the replacement of the words ''surface mining activities'' with ''surface mining operations'' represents an improvement in the final-form regulation. It brings the language of this regulation into greater consistency with State and Federal law.
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1. Regulation No. 7-293 from the Environmental Quality Board, as submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996, is approved; and
2. The Commission will transmit a copy of this Order to the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Commissioners Present: John R. McGinley, Jr., Chairperson; Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman
Public meeting held
October 17, 1996Environmental Quality Board--Area Unsuitable for Surface Mining Activities; Squaw Run; Doc. No. 7-292
Order On October 25, 1995, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Environmental Quality Board (EQB). This rulemaking would amend 25 Pa. Code § 86.130(b). The authority for this regulation is contained in sections 4.2(a) and 4.5(b)(3) of the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (52 P. S. §§ 1396.4b(a) and 1396.4e(b)(3)); section 6.1(b)(3) of the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act (52 P. S. §§ 30.56a(b)(3)); sections 315(h)--(o) of The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S §§ 691.315(h)--(o)); and sections 1920-A and 1930-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. §§ 510-20 and 510-30). The proposed regulation was published in the November 4, 1995 Pennsylvania Bulletin with a 60-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996.
This regulation will prohibit surface mining activities within a 450 acre tract of land located in Slippery Rock and Wayne Townships, Lawrence County. This tract of land is located in the Squaw Run watershed. The regulation will impact individuals who have property interests or reside within the area proposed to be designated as unsuitable for surface mining activities. Their water supplies will not be further degraded by surface mining activities. The designation will also affect coal operators who may have been planning to apply for surface mining permits in the area. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will not issue a mining permit in an area where the water supplies will be degraded as a result of the mining operations, unless the mine operator can demonstrate the availability of an alternative water supply. DEP has determined that replacement wells would need perpetual treatment and maintenance to produce water suitable for domestic use. By designating the area as unsuitable for surface mining, coal operators will avoid the costs of applying for a permit and the associated costs of water quality and reclamation studies.
DEP estimates that the designation will affect approximately 1,158,000 tons of Middle Kittanning coal. Based on a market value of $24 per ton, the coal is valued at approximately $28 million. DEP also estimates that the mining of this coal would provide 356-employe years of direct employment and 712-employe years of support employment, some of which would come from the local labor market. To make these calculations, DEP assumed that all coal could be extracted through surface mining and that the coal is laterally persistent throughout the petition area. DEP states that based on these assumptions, the estimates represent a liberal estimate of the surface mineable reserves in the petition area.
Representative Frank LaGrotta, Carl Thalgott and Dale Mackey submitted comments in support of the proposed rulemaking. On October 8, 1996, Representative LaGrotta submitted comments expressing support for the final-form regulation.
We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. On May 24, 1993, DEP and EQB received a petition from Thalgott and Mackey requesting that 450 acres in the Squaw Run watershed in Lawrence County be designated as unsuitable for surface mining. In response to the petition, DEP conducted a study of the petition area and found that two private water wells were degraded by surface mining and had to be replaced by the mine operator. It also found that a third well near the two which were replaced was also degraded by surface mining, and that other existing wells and springs in the petition area have a high potential to be degraded by surface mining. DEP also found that surface water quality in the Squaw Run watershed, which encompasses the petition area, has been affected by surface mining.
Stream waters in Squaw Run are alkaline and contain elevated concentrations of sulfate, calcium and magnesium. DEP denied a surface mining permit application in the petition area because wells could be adversely affected by surface mining and no suitable replacements for private water supplies were identified.
Based on the results of its study, DEP determined that further surface mining would adversely affect the groundwater system and that suitable replacement water supplies are not available within the petition area. Given these findings, we believe this regulation is in the public interest.
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1. Regulaton No. 7-292 from the Environmental Quality Board, as submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996, is approved; and
2. The Commission will transmit a copy of this Order to the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Commissioners Present: John R. McGinley, Jr., Chairperson; Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman
Public meeting held
October 17, 1996Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Land Conservation Assistance Grant Program; Doc. No. 2-100
Order March 27, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Department of Agriculture (Department). This rulemaking would amend 7 Pa. Code Chapter 138h. The authority for this regulation is Act 99 of 1994 (act) (3 P. S. §§ 1207.1 and 1207.3). The proposed regulation was published in the April 6, 1996 Pennsylvania Bulletin with a 30-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996.
The proposed regulation implements the Agricultural Land Conservation Assistance Grant Program (Grant Program) authorized by the act. Grants may be awarded to assist counties in establishing or improving Easement Purchase Programs, established by the Agricultural Area Security Law (3 P. S. §§ 901--915), to conserve and protect agricultural lands for the production of foods and agricultural products, particularly agricultural areas under pressure from expanding metropolitan areas.
The proposal establishes specific criteria to be used to evaluate and rank grant applications. The criteria include acceptability of costs, availability of funding from other sources, impact on the goal of preserving agricultural lands, relevance to encouraging preservation of agricultural lands, geographic scope, value to the community, innovativeness of the project, the anticipated date of full implementation of a County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (County Program), and the impact the project would have on other County Programs.
All counties, except Philadelphia, that have formed, and appointed members to a county agricultural preservation board are eligible applicants. The proposal establishes monetary limits on grants, eligibility criteria and an application process.
At proposed rulemaking, the Department received comments from the Pennsylvania Farmland Preservation Association (PFPA) and the Westmoreland County Farmland Preservation Program. Both commentators expressed concern with a restriction in the proposed eligibility criteria which stated that the Grant Program would not accept applications for projects already in progress, or completed, by an eligible county. The commentators were concerned that previous development of a basic Geographical Information System (GIS) would make them ineligible for development of additional data. They believed grant funds should be available to improve and complete GIS data entry to benefit evaluation procedures.
We agreed with the Department's policy to restrict eligibility for grant funds to exclude completed projects or projects already in progress. However, we questioned whether the Department intended to disqualify applicants for projects which would enhance or upgrade an existing spatial mapping database. We recommended revised language which would allow funding for separate phases or levels of a computer project, but would continue to prohibit funding of project costs for which a county had already identified funding or for which an appropriation had been made in the county's budget. Our suggested revisions were incorporated in the Department's final-form rulemaking. Revised language recommended by the Commission for additional clarification of eligible and ineligible expenditures of grant funds were incorporated in the final-form as well.
The proposed regulation required that grantees have a County Program in place within 3 calendar years of the date of the first grant agreement. Counties which did not have a County Program in place were required to return grant funds to the Department. In the final-form rulemaking, the Department adopted the suggestion of the PFPA to require grantees to have a program in place within 2 calendar years. A requirement that grant recipients maintain books and records for 7 years was revised to a 3-year requirement in response to our Comments.
We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. The Department responded to our Comments and those of other commentators through revisions to its final-form rulemaking. The Department deleted subsection (b) section 138h.1, Grant Program Objectives, which contained administrative requirements. Additional revisions recommended by the Commission were made by clarifying filing application requirements and time limits, reconciling inconsistent requirements for review of applications, adding a requirement that repayments be credited to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Fund, and making revisions for the consistent use of terms for the County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (County Program) and the Agricultural Land Conservation Assistance Grant Program (Grant Program).
Two minor recommendations made by the Commission, a clarification in section 138h.10 for grant agreements, and a request for consistent use of terminology when referencing records, were not adopted by the Department. However, these omissions do not diminish the purpose of the Easement Purchase Program and the Grant Program which are designed to benefit predominantly agricultural counties where growth is occurring.
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1. Regulation No. 2-100 from the Department of Agriculture, as submitted to the Commission on September 17, 1996, is approved; and
2. The Commission will transmit a copy of this Order to the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Commissioners Present: John R. McGinley, Jr., Chairperson; Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman
Public meeting held
October 17, 1996Department of Community and Economic Development--Neighborhood Assistance Programs; Special Program Priorities and Enterprise Zone Tax Credit Program; Doc. No. 5-61
Order On May 8, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). This rulemaking would amend 16 Pa. Code §§ 15.41b and 15.49a. The authority for this regulation is found in Article XIX-A of the Tax Reform Code of 1971, also known as the Neighborhood Assistance Act (act) (72 P. S. §§ 8901-A--8906-A). The proposed regulation was published in the May 18, 1996 Pennsylvania Bulletin with a 30-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on September 26, 1996.
Each fiscal year DCED will now be responsible for promulgating regulations formerly promulgated by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) establishing special program priorities for the Neighborhood Assistance Act Programs. The main objective of the act is to encourage private business firms to provide capital to improve impoverished neighborhoods and to encourage private companies to invest in physical improvements in enterprise zones that result in community economic development. The act established two programs: the Neighborhood Assistance Program and the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit Program. Each of these programs contains two tax incentive programs which provide tax credits to business firms that contribute to neighborhood organizations or that invest in community economic development.
Under the Neighborhood Assistance Program, DCED will distribute tax credits to business firms that provide neighborhood assistance, job training, community services, education and crime prevention or that contribute to neighborhood organizations which provide these services. Credits of up to 50% of a business firm's contribution for approved projects may be awarded for the foregoing neighborhood improvements that enhance the living conditions of people in impoverished areas. Under the Special Program Priorities of 16 Pa. Code § 15.41b, contributors may be eligible for an additional 20% tax credit (for a total of 70%) for projects that improve the physical and economic environment of low-income neighborhoods or which will contribute to neighborhood stabilization by reversing patterns of deterioration and blight. These two tax credit incentive programs allow contributors to obtain a total of 70% in tax credits under the Neighborhood Assistance Program.
The existing Special Program Priorities consist of Comprehensive Services, Low Income Housing Programs and Enterprise Zone Programs. The proposed regulation adds a fourth priority and changes the names of two existing priorities. DCED proposes to change the name of the existing Low-Income Housing Program to the Affordable Housing Program, but no changes to program requirements are proposed. DCED also proposes to change the name of the existing Comprehensive Service Program to the Community Development Program and to add as a fourth priority the new Comprehensive Service Program.
The new Comprehensive Program Priority mirrors the proposed Community Development Program. The Community Development Program is based on a project which is a component of an overall community development plan for the prevention or elimination of physical blight and for education, social and economic services for impoverished people in urban or rural communities. The new Comprehensive Service Program encompasses a Strategic Neighborhood Revitalization Plan designed to transform an entire distressed community into a healthy stable community through long-term joint efforts of a neighborhood/community organization and a major corporate sponsor.
Separate and distinct from the Neighborhood Assistance Program is the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit Program. This program was established in 1986 to encourage private companies to rehabilitate, expand or improve buildings or land in impoverished areas that have been designated as enterprise zones by DCED. Currently, there are 52 zones designated in various municipalities throughout the Commonwealth.
Under the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit Program, a tax credit of 20% will be granted for investments made to expand, rehabilitate or improve buildings or land located in enterprise zones. This Program also contains provisions for Special Program Priorities. The private company must first qualify for the initial 20% tax credit and then may be able to qualify for an additional 10% (for a total of 30%) if the project meets the criteria established under the Special Program Priorities. The Special Program Priorities consist of projects that will provide employment opportunities for low-income residents of the Commonwealth or that will enhance public facilities. Each project must create jobs for low-income individuals and include construction of or substantial repairs to a publicly-owned facility such as streets, sidewalks or street lights. The regulation is proposing to continue the priorities that have been in effect for the last several years.
We raised two issues in our Comments on the proposed regulation. The first issue related to the clarity of section 15.41b(4)(iv) Comprehensive service programs. This section of the proposed regulation provided that ''The program shall include the following areas of concern of the economically distressed neighborhood: . . . .'' We noted that the list of ''areas of concern'' included in section 15.41b(4)(iv)(A)--(G) could be more accurately characterized as a list of components and goals for the program. Consequently, we recommended that the final-form regulation be revised to replace the phrase '' . . . areas of concern of . . . '' with '' . . . components and goals for . . . .'' The final-form regulation has been amended to reflect our recommended wording change.
The second issue raised in our Comments related to the timing of the regulation. The proposed regulation presented the special program priorities for the fiscal year 1995-96 which ended on June 30, 1996. The statute (72 P. S. § 8905-A) requires that regulations establishing special program priorities be promulgated during the first month of each fiscal year and amended throughout the fiscal year as the public interest dictates. Therefore, the proposed regulation should have been promulgated in July of 1995. In our Comments, we requested that DCED explain the delay in submitting the proposed regulation.
We also noted in our Comments that it was our understanding that the final-form regulation would be retroactive to the beginning of the 1995-96 fiscal year. However, since the guidelines in the proposed regulation had not been codified, we commented that it was unclear how investors could apply for and receive credits for investments made in the 1995-96 fiscal year. We requested that DCED fully explain the application and subsequent review process that will be used by DCED for investments made in the 1995-96 fiscal year.
In response to our concerns regarding the timing of the regulations, DCED explained that previously in July of each year, DCA established the priorities for the program. The priorities were then subject to review and approval by internal DCA personnel and eventually the Governor. DCED explained that approval to proceed with the regulations were usually not received until well into the fiscal year. For the fiscal year 1995-96 approval to proceed was not obtained until mid-December 1995, in part because of questions concerning the elimination of DCA. DCED explained that the regulation was prepared and sent to the Office of Attorney General and the Office of General Counsel in December. DCED further noted that review of the proposed rulemaking by the Office of Attorney General, Office of General Counsel, the standing committees and the Commission was not completed until July of 1996. According to DCED, promulgation of the final-form regulation was delayed, in part, because of uncertainty surrounding consolidation of DCA and DCED programs currently existing in Titles 13 and 16.
We recognize that DCED has no control over some aspects of the review process associated with promulgating these regulations. However, given that the process of closing the Department of Community Affairs is complete, we anticipate that the special program priorities for the 1996-97 fiscal year will be completed in a more timely manner.
In response to our concern regarding how investors apply for and receive credits for projects completed in the 1995-96 fiscal year, DCED explained that when they develop the special program priorities, they notify the local service agencies with which DCED contracts to administer the neighborhood assistance program. The local service agencies inform investors of the proposed special program priorities for which investors may receive the additional 20% tax credit. The local service agencies stress that the special program priorities are proposed and that the additional 20% tax credit will not be available unless the regulation containing the special program priorities is approved. After the regulation is approved, DCED notifies the local service agencies which, in turn, notify investors so that they can apply for the additional 20% tax credit.
We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. Adoption of the final-form regulation will allow DCED to meet the statutory mandate to establish special program priorities for the Neighborhood Assistance Act Programs. We encourage DCED to proceed with the regulation for the 1996-97 fiscal year priorities as expeditiously as possible.
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1. Regulation No. 5-61 from the Department of Community and Economic Development, as submitted to the Commission on September 26, 1996, is approved; and
2. The Commission will transmit a copy of this Order to the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Commissioners Present: Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman
Public meeting held
October 17, 1996Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board--Heating Oil Tank Optional Program; Doc. No. 11-128
Order On September 18, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this regulation from the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board (Board). This rulemaking would add 25 Pa. Code Chapter 975, Heating Oil Tank Optional Program. The authority for this regulation is section 704(e) of the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act (act) (35 P. S. § 6021.704(e)). Notice of proposed rulemaking was omitted for this regulation; it will become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. On October 11, 1996, the Commission received amendments from the Board to its September 18 submittal.
The Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund (Fund) is a nonlapsing fund in the State Treasury. The Fund acts as an insurance policy covering liabilities resulting from leaks in underground storage tanks. Section 704(a)(1) of the act provides ''Moneys in the Fund are hereby appropriated to the board for the purpose of making payments to owners and operators of underground storage tanks who incur liability for taking corrective action or for bodily injury or property damage caused by a sudden or nonsudden release from underground storage tanks.''
Prior to Act 16 of 1995, underground storage ''tanks of 3,000 gallons or less used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on premises where stored'' were specifically exempted from mandatory participation in the Fund. Act 16 of 1995 made several amendments to the act. Two of the amendments form the basis for this regulation. First, section 1 of Act 16 of 1995 amended the definition of underground storage tank in section 103 of the act (35 P. S. § 6021.103) by eliminating the size requirement ''of 3,000 gallons or less'' and added a qualifier that would not exempt tanks required to be regulated by Federal law. As a result, all ''tanks used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on premises where stored'' are exempted from mandatory participation in the Fund, unless they are specifically required to be regulated by Federal law. Second, section 8 of Act 16 of 1995 added section 704(e) to the act (35 P. S. § 6021.704(e)) which provides for optional participation in the Fund for ''any owner of an underground storage tank of 3,000 gallons or more used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored. . . . '' These owners or operators who elect to participate in the Fund are subject to the same regulations and fees as mandatory participants. The Board is required to establish regulations which specify the procedures and criteria for owners and operators to ''opt into'' the Fund.
Since participation is optional, there will not be any mandated burden on tank owners. Mandated participants in the Fund will not be adversely affected because the optional participants' fees are based upon the same parameters as the mandated participants. The benefits of this regulation are that heating oil tank owners who qualify will have an additional option to cover losses caused by leaks.
We found several concerns with the final-omit regulation submitted on September 18, 1996. We sent a list of our concerns to the Board on September 30, 1996. The majority of our concerns involved changes made to the act by Act 16 of 1995. 35 P. S. § 6012.704(e), Options, states that ''Any owner of an underground storage tank . . . .'' (Emphasis added.) may elect to participate. Also, the term ''commercial heating oil tank'' was deleted from the act by Act 16 of 1995. Therefore, the present act does not make a distinction as to whether a tank is ''commercial.'' However, the regulation was titled and repeatedly used the term ''commercial.'' We recommended removing the term ''commercial'' from the regulation as well as revisions to the definition of ''Heating oil products'' and ''Fees.'' We also recommended several references be corrected and along with other clarifications.
Our staff met with representatives from the Board on October 10, 1996, to review our concerns. As a result of that meeting, the Board submitted revisions to the final-form regulation on October 11, 1996, which was responsive to our concerns.
We have reviewed this revised regulation and find it to be in the public interest. The changes made by the Board improve the clarity of the regulation and make it consistent with the amendments contained in Act 16 of 1995. We have one final clarification we believe would improve this regulation. The last sentence of section 975.5(b) provides ''Coverage may be reinstated as provided in section 705(e)'' of the act. We believe the intent was to state that coverage is reinstated upon receipt of fees consistent with section 705(e) of the act. While we believe this clarification is important, we do not believe it should deter the implementation of the overall regulation. Instead, we recommend that the Board include this clarification in its next rulemaking.
Therefore, It Is Ordered That:
1. Regulation No. 11-128 from the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board, as submitted to the Commission September 18, 1996, and amended October 11, 1996, is approved; and
2. The Commission will transmit a copy of this Order to the Legislative Reference Bureau.
JOHN R. MCGINLEY, JR.,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 96-1853. Filed for public inspection November 1, 1996, 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.
