NOTICES
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Comments Issued
[29 Pa.B. 3788] Section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(g)) provides that the designated standing committees may issue comments within 20 days of the close of the public comment period, and the Commission may issue comments within 10 days of the close of the committee comment period. The Commission comments are based upon the criteria contained in section 5a(h) and (I) of the act (75 P. S. § 745.5a(h)(I)).
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 regulations must be submitted by the dates indicated.
Final-Form Submission Reg No. Agency/Title Issued Deadline 16A-5112 State Board of Nursing
Fees7/1/99 5/31/01 (29 Pa.B. 2299 (May 1, 1999)) 16A-527 State Board of
Optometry
Application Fees7/1/99 5/31/01 (29 Pa.B. 2300 (May 1, 1999))
State Board of Nursing Regulation No. 16A-5112
Fees
July 1, 1999 We have reviewed this proposed regulation from the State Board of Nursing (Board) and submit for consideration the following objections and recommendations. Subsections 5.1(h) and 5.1(i) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(h) and (i)) specify the criteria the Commission must employ to determine whether a regulation is in the public interest. In applying these criteria our Comments address issues that relate to fiscal impact and clarity. We recommend that these Comments be carefully considered as you prepare the final-form regulation.
1. Sections 21.5. and 21.147 Fees.--Fiscal Impact and Clarity.
Administrative overhead costs.
In the proposed regulation's fee report forms, there are significant differences in the costs covered by different fees except for ''Administrative Overhead'' costs. With the exception of the fee for certification of scores, the administrative overhead costs are the same for all of the fees. According to staff at the Department of State and its Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA), the allocated share of overhead costs for each fee category is calculated by dividing total overhead costs by the number of active licensees. This methodology for overhead cost allocation is not unreasonable and has been consistently applied. On the other hand, the staff cost allocations are based on estimates of the actual time BPOA staff spends performing the tasks related to each fee.
For overhead cost allocations, there appears to be no relationship to the services covered by the fees or frequency of fee payments. Therefore, there is no indication that the fees will recover actual or projected overhead costs. In addition, the allocated costs are based on past expenditures rather than estimates or projections of future expenditures. Hence, there is no certainty that the fees' ''projected revenues will meet or exceed projected expenditures'' under section 7.5(a) of the Professional Nursing Law (63 P. S. § 667.5(a)) and section 21.2(a) of the Practical Nurse Law (63 P. S. § 221.2(a)).
We question the use of a constant overhead cost allocation that appears to be unrelated to the actual costs of activities covered by different fees. Even though this process was used to determine other fees, why should BPOA maintain this approach? The Board and BPOA should specifically identify the overhead costs, or portion of the total overhead, to be recouped by these fees, and review their methodology for allocating these overhead costs. Is it the Board's goal to allocate all overhead costs by category to each fee? If so, we do not believe the current allocation formula gives the desired result.
Differing overhead costs
The administrative overhead costs for all fees are $8.21, except for the certification of scores, which is $9.76. The Board should explain why the administrative costs for certification of scores are different.
State Board of Optometry Regulation No. 16A-527
Application Fees
July 1, 1999 We have reviewed this proposed regulation from the State Board of Optometry (Board) and submit for consideration the following objections and recommendations. Subsections 5.1(h) and 5.1(i) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(h) and (i)) specify the criteria the Commission must employ to determine whether a regulation is in the public interest. In applying these criteria, our Comments address issues that relate to fiscal impact and clarity. We recommend that these Comments be carefully considered as you prepare the final-form regulation.
Section 23.91. Fees.--Fiscal impact and Clarity
Administrative overhead costs
In the proposed regulation's Fee Report Forms, there are significant differences in the costs covered by different fees except for ''Administrative Overhead'' costs. According to staff at the Department of State and its Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA), the allocated share of overhead cost for each fee category is calculated by dividing total overhead costs by the number of active licensees. This methodology for overhead cost allocation is not unreasonable and has been consistently applied. On the other hand, the staff cost allocations are based on estimates of the actual time BPOA staff spends performing the tasks related to each fee.
For overhead cost allocations, there appears to be no relationship to the services covered by the fees or frequency of fee payments. Therefore, there is no indication that the fees will recover actual or projected overhead costs. In addition, the allocated costs are based on past expenditures rather than estimates or projections of future expenditures. Hence, there is no certainty that the fees' ''projected revenues will meet or exceed projected expenditures'' under section 9(c) of the Optometric Practice and Licensure Act (63 P. S. § 244.9(c)).
We question the use of a constant overhead cost allocation that appears to be unrelated to the actual costs of activities covered by different fees. Even though this process was used to determine other fees, why should BPOA maintain this approach? The Board and BPOA should specifically identify the overhead costs, or portion of the total overhead, to be recouped by these fees, and review their methodology for allocating these overhead costs. Is it the Board's goal to allocate all overhead costs by category to each fee? If so, we do not believe the current allocation formula gives the desired result.
Differing overhead costs
The administrative overhead costs for all fees are $15.77, except for the verification of licensure and certification of scores, or licensure, or both, which is $9.76. The Board should explain why the administrative costs for the verification of licensure and certification of scores, or licensure, or both are different.
Unclear estimate of applicants on Fee Report Form
The Board is adding a fee for application for continuing education program approval. The Fee Report Form for the ''Application for Continuing Education Program Approval'' estimates that 1,500 approvals will be issued for the biennial period.
In their comments, the House Professional Licensure Committee observed that the estimated number of applicants seemed excessive. They asked the Board to explain how continuing education programs are approved, and whether the fee is paid by licensees, providers, or both. We agree with the Committee's comments. We request that the Board provide the additional information requested by the Committee.
Inconsistency in fee title
The fee for ''certification of scores or licensure, or both'', as written, states that a request for either certification of scores or licensure costs $25, while certification for both, if asked for simultaneously, costs $25. We understand that this category is actually a fee for certification of examination scores. The Board should clarify this category in its final-form rulemaking. For instance, this provision could be revised to read ''certification of examination scores [or licensure, or both].''
JOHN R. MCGINLEY, Jr.,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 99-1147. Filed for public inspection July 16, 1999, 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.
