RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 52--PUBLIC UTILITIES
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
[52 PA. CODE CH. 62]
[30 Pa.B. 6346] [L-00000147]
Reporting Requirements for Quality of Service Benchmarks and Standards The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) on June 8, 2000, adopted a final rulemaking order establishing uniform measures and standard data reporting requirements for natural gas distribution companies (NGDCs). The contract persons are M.J. (Holly) Frymoyer, Bureau of Consumer Services (technical) (717) 783-1628, and Rhonda Daviston, Law Bureau (legal) (717) 787-6166.
Executive Summary
On June 22, 1999, Governor Tom Ridge signed into law 66 Pa.C.S. Chapter 22 (relating to Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act) (act). Section 2206(a) of the act (relating to consumer protections and customer service) requires that customer services shall, at a minimum, be maintained at the same level of quality under retail competition as in existence on June 22, 1999. The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish uniform measures and reporting requirements to allow the Commission to monitor the level of the NGDCs' customer service performance. Using the statistics collected under this rulemaking, the Commission will annually prepare a summary report on the customer service performance of the covered NGDCs. The reports will be public information.
Regulatory Review
Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(a)), on February 3, 2000, the Department submitted a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, published at 30 Pa.B. 893 (February 19, 2000), to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Committees for review and comment.
Under section 5(c) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC and the Committees were provided with copies of the comments received during the public comment period, as well as other documents when requested. In preparing these final-form regulations, the Department has considered all comments from IRRC, the Committees and the public.
Under section 5.1(d) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5a(d)), on October 23, 2000, these final-form regulations were deemed approved by the House and Senate Committees. Under section 5.1(e) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC met on November 2, 2000, and approved the final-form regulations.
Public Meeting held
June 8, 2000Commissioners Present: John M. Quain, Chairperson; Robert K. Bloom, Vice-Chairperson; Nora Mead Brownell; Aaron Wilson, Jr.; Terrance J. Fitzpatrick
Final Rulemaking Order By the Commission:
At public meeting of January 12, 2000, the Commission issued an order adopting and directing publication of proposed regulations to establish a means by which the Commission can develop uniform measurement and reporting requirements to assure that the customer services of the NGDCs are maintained, at a minimum, at the same level of quality under retail competition.
Background
On June 22, 1999, Governor Tom Ridge signed into law the act. The act revised the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 101 et seq. by inter alia, adding Chapter 22 (relating to restructuring of the natural gas utility industry). Section 2206(a) of the act (relating to consumer protections and customer service) is clear that customer service for retail gas customers is, at a minimum, to be maintained at the same level of quality under retail competition as in existence on June 22, 1999.
Based on its experience with collecting quality of service data from the electric distribution companies in accordance with §§ 54.151--54.156 (relating to reporting requirements for quality of service bench marks and standards), the Commission instituted a rulemaking proceeding to establish a means by which the Commission can ensure that the quality of each NGDC's customer service performance is being maintained. The proposed regulations set forth uniform measures and standard data reporting requirements for various components of an NGDC's customer service performance and established effective dates for the reporting requirements.
The proposed regulations were published at 30 Pa.B. 893 (February 19, 2000) and a 30-day comment period set. The 30-day comment period for public comments ended March 20, 2000. The proposed rulemaking was served on all jurisdictional gas companies, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA), the Office of Small Business Advocate and all parties to this proceeding. The Commission order was also posted on the Commission's Internet website.
We received comments from The Pennsylvania Gas Association (PGA) on behalf of its member companies; the OCA; Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Columbia); Statoil Energy Services, Inc. and TXU Energy Services (Statoil and TXU); and IRRC. We have considered all these comments. We appreciate and thank the commentators for their suggestions on developing final-form regulations.
This order presents a summary of comments and our response. Comments not directed toward any specific section are included after the section-by-section summary. The final-form regulations, as revised pursuant to the discussion in this order, appear in Annex A.
§ 62.31. Purpose.
IRRC suggested that to improve clarity, we should specify that this regulation applies to two classes of NGDCs which are required to file restructuring plans under the Act: large NGDCs serving more than 100,000 residential customers and small NGDCs serving less than 100,000 residential customers.
We also received comments that generally apply to this section from Statoil and TXU. These companies point out that the regulations fail to address NGDC services to third party suppliers. Statoil and TXU recommend that the Commission expand its analysis of NGDC performance to include service to sales and transportation customers. They suggest that the NGDCs be held accountable for customer service to these entities through similar benchmarks and reporting requirements. Statoil and TXU also suggest that the Commission may want to measure an NGDC's performance in opening up its system to competition by looking at migration and enrollment trends. They recommended that the Commission may want to require data regarding data error, average time from order to ordinary installation and conformance of payment transmission to contractual standards.
Response: We do not agree with the recommendation of Statoil and TXU to expand the coverage of the regulation to include NGDC services to third-party suppliers. Although we acknowledge the importance of a cooperative relationship between an NGDC and a supplier, the purpose of this rulemaking is to gather data on existing measures of customer service to existing end use customers. Further, we believe that the transaction survey will help the Commission monitor and uncover poor performance, if any, on the part of NGDCs that might be associated with competition and their lack of cooperation with natural gas suppliers. Thus, we decline to make the requested change at this time.
In regard to IRRC's comments, we agree and have revised the language of this section accordingly. The revised section reads:
This subchapter establishes a means by which the Commission can develop uniform measurement and reporting to assure that the customer services of the natural gas distribution companies (NGDCs) that are required to file restructuring plans under the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act are maintained, at a minimum, at the same level of quality under retail competition. This subchapter sets forth uniform measurements and reporting requirements for monitoring the level of the customer service performance of two separate classes of these NGDCs: NGDCs serving more than 100,000 residential customers and those serving less than 100,000 residential customers. This subchapter also establishes the effective dates of the reporting requirements.§ 62.32. Definitions.
Call abandonment rate. Columbia reiterates a suggestion it made to the proposed rulemaking regarding Reporting Requirements for Quality of Service Benchmarks and Standards for electric distribution companies (EDCs). Columbia suggests that an abandoned call should be calculated as abandoned only if the call is abandoned after 45 seconds of waiting.
IRRC recommended that we delete the phrase ''...at the NGDC's telephone call center or business office'' that appeared at the end of the definition of Call abandonment rate.
Response: We did not agree with Columbia's suggestion and did not revise the definition of call abandonment rate to accommodate this recommendation. We believe that 45 seconds is a long period of time and that frustrated customers may disconnect their calls long before 45 seconds is up. We plan to establish a working group that will consist of representatives of the subject NGDCs and the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS). One purpose of this working group will be to discuss the calculations and measurement of call abandonment rate and the other access measures. The object of this group's discussion will be to make certain that all the NGDCs will report this and the other statistics uniformly.
We agree with IRRC's recommendation and have deleted that phrase from the definition of Call Abandonment Rate.
Justified payment arrangement request and justified informal consumer complaint. IRRC pointed out that the definitions of justified payment arrangement request and justified informal consumer complaint contain references to the Commission's ''negotiation procedures or regulations.'' IRRC believed that this phrase is vague and recommends that we specify the procedures and regulations.
Response: The BCS has met with representatives of the six largest NGDCs on numerous occasions both individually and collaboratively to explain its rules for determining whether or not a consumer complaint or payment arrangement request is justified in coming to the BCS. In addition, the BCS has shared written explanations of its rules and annually updates and distributes its payment arrangement guidelines that are based on the Federal poverty guidelines. The NGDCs are all aware of these rules, guidelines and the regulations that apply to them in their dealings with residential gas customers. The BCS sends quarterly reports containing this information to the individual NGDCs. Further, the Commission has annually published justified rates in its annual report, Utilities Activities Report and Evaluation (UCARE). The report is available to the public in hard copy and more recently is available on the Commission Internet website.
For these reasons, we conclude that the affected parties are well aware of how the BCS determines whether or not it considers a case justified in coming to us. However, because the ''justified'' rules are fluid and may change based on many factors, including changes in Commission policy, we prefer not to include language in the regulation that would limit the procedures and policies to those in effect at this point in time. We want to point out that if BCS makes changes, it announces them to the companies well before they take effect. If requested, the BCS will meet with companies again to go over its rules for determining ''justified'' cases.
Infraction rate, justified informal consumer complaint rate and justified payment arrangement request rate. IRRC suggested that to improve clarity, we should add the phrase ''as determined by BCS'' to the definitions of infraction rate, justified informal consumer complaint rate and justified payment arrangement request rate.
Response: We accept this suggestion and have added the clarifying language to each definition:
Transaction survey. IRRC recommended that subparagraph (ii) in the definition of ''transaction survey'' be deleted.
The PGA pointed out that the list of interactions to be captured in transaction surveys that appears in the definitions is inconsistent with the list that appears in proposed § 62.34(3) under interaction categories.
Response: We agree with IRRC's recommendation and have deleted this list from the definition of transaction survey. The change also addresses PGA's concern.
Promptness and Timeliness: In its comments to §§ 62.34(1) and 62.35(3)(iv), IRRC recommends that we add two terms to the definitions that appear in these sections: ''promptness'' and ''timeliness.''
Response: Based on this recommendation, we added these terms and their definitions to § 62.32. The added definitions read:
Promptness--The state or condition of acting or responding with speed or readiness to a customer's question, complaint, dispute or request. An example of promptness might be the NGDC responding to a customer's request for a premise visit with an appointment in five days rather than in five weeks.Timeliness--The state or condition of acting at the appropriate or correct time as previously determined or promised when responding to a customer's question, complaint, dispute or request. An example of timeliness might be an NGDC representative arriving at the customer's residence on the date and at the time previously agreed upon by the NGDC and the customer.§ 62.33. Reporting Requirements.
Subsection (b) Recordkeeping.
IRRC commented that this section contained unnecessary language and that the phrase ''take measures necessary and keep sufficient records to'' is not necessary.
The OCA recommended that in addition to the measures included in the proposed rulemaking, the Commission should also require the NGDCs to track and report its dispute ratio by key categories.
Both IRRC and the OCA ask the Commission to consider adding an additional measure to the data an NGDC must report. They propose that we add the amount of time it takes for an NGDC to respond to emergency calls. The OCA suggested that the Commission require NGDCs to track and report the number of minutes between the logging of a customer's request for a premise visit due to gas safety concerns and the arrival of a company representative at the affected premise.
Response: With respect to IRRC's comment regarding the unnecessary language in this section, we concur with this comment and have deleted the phrase from the section as suggested by IRRC.
With respect to OCA's suggestion regarding the addition of dispute ratios by key categories, we agree that this information would be of value. However, our experience with the electric distribution companies in this Commonwealth indicated that this information was not available. The companies were not logging in calls in this manner. We are assuming that the NGDCs would likewise not have this information available. To require that the NGDCs report this would require new data collection processes on the part of most of the NGDCs and would likely add to their expenses. Therefore, we decline to add this additional measure to the list of data that NGDCs are required to report.
However, we would like to point out that the Commission will be able to rely on two sources for this type of data. First, the BCS annually produces statistics from its own call center that captures this information to some degree. The Commission's annual report UCARE includes a table that shows a breakdown of each major NGDC's complaints to the BCS into more than a dozen different categories. We have found that these categories reflect the types and percentages of complaints consumers have made directly to an NGDC since in most cases, the BCS requires that a consumer attempt to solve a complaint with the company prior to appealing to the Commission. Second, the Commission will be able to rely on transaction survey results since the findings are to be reported by category of interaction, such as credit and collection, billing, reliability and safety, etc. as specified in § 62.34(2) of Annex A.
With respect to IRRC's and OCA's suggestion, we agree that NGDC response to safety calls is extremely important and needs to be monitored by the Commission. As a result of these suggestions, we initiated several rounds of discussion within the Commission to explore revising the proposed regulations to include this response statistic in a way that would be of value to the Commission. The Commission's Bureau of Transportation and Safety is already collecting and reviewing this information from all the NGDCs. The companies report gas safety response times monthly. However, at the present time the reporting is not required by Commission regulation.
The major consideration of our discussions on this matter centered around the fact that the instant rulemaking pertains only to the NGDCs that are required to file restructuring plans. (See revised § 62.31 Purpose.) It is vital that the Commission receive emergency response data from all NGDCs, not just those covered by the Act. In fact, the need for emergency response data from smaller gas utilities is just as critical, if not more so in some instances. However, natural gas utilities that are not covered by the Act were not placed on notice in the proposed rulemaking about potential reporting requirements they would need to fulfill. Therefore, it is the position of the Commission's Law Bureau that an expansion of the proposed rulemaking to include these gas utilities would appear to violate both the act of July 31, 1968 (P. L. 769, No. 240) (45 P. S. §§ 1201--1205), known as the Commonwealth Documents Law and general principles of due process.
We acknowledge that we could incorporate this requirement into the instant rulemaking and receive data from only the covered NGDCs. However, we concluded that this would not be in the best interest of the Commission since we would then need to institute another rulemaking to collect the information from the smaller NGDCs. Therefore, we have decided to defer this reporting to a separate, future rulemaking proceeding that will apply to all NGDCs. The Commission expects to institute a rulemaking requiring NGDCs to report response to gas safety calls before the end of 2000. Thus, we will not include gas safety reporting with the requirements in the instant rulemaking.
§ 62.33. Reporting Requirements, Subsection (3) Meter reading.
The comments of both IRRC and Columbia asked us to consider the variations in number of inside meters among NGDCs as would relate to this section. Columbia argued that it has a high percentage of inside meters and is often unable to gain access to these meters to obtain a reading.
Response: For the most part, we formulated the quality of service reporting requirements on established regulation--primarily Chapter 56 (relating to standards and billing practices for residential utility standards). We acknowledge that there are differences among the NGDCs concerning the percentage of inside residential gas meters. However, we argue that the companies have been under the Chapter 56 for more than 20 years and thus have had a more than adequate amount of time to adjust to the Chapter 56 meter reading provisions. Some utilities have taken steps to reduce the number of inside meters over the years to increase their ability to obtain readings. We also believe that the Chapter 56 provide the utilities with an extended period of time in which to obtain an actual or customer supplied reading (6 months) and an actual reading (12 months). Further, Chapter 56 addresses the issue of a utility's inability to gain access to read a meter by providing utilities with procedures such as the threat of termination and actual termination of service for failure to provide access. We believe that the NGDCs should have resolved this problem by now and should be able to obtain readings as required by the meter reading sections of Chapter 56.
During its 20 plus years of investigating consumer complaints, the BCS has learned that the failure of companies to read meters regularly produces numerous complaints to both companies and to the BCS. Regular meter reading is important to produce accurate bills for customers who expect to receive bills based on the amount of energy they have used. We are concerned that regular meter reading may be one of the customer service areas where, under competition, the NGDCs may reduce service resulting in more bills being estimated. We appreciate that from time to time companies may need to estimate customer meter readings, but we also have seen the effects of too many estimates. We believe that even if a customer has a meter located inside the premises, the NGDCs should strive to meet the minimum meter reading requirements as outlined in Chapter 56.
§ 62.34. Customer Surveys
Paragraph (1) Purpose.
IRRC recommended that for clarity, the Commission should define ''promptness'' and ''timeliness,'' two qualities to be used to assess the customer's perception of the most recent transaction with the NGDC, in the definitions. As discussed under the definition section, we agree with IRRC's recommendation and added these two attributes to the list of definitions.
Columbia cautioned that the Commission should recognize that the expanded availability of customer choice increases the likelihood of customer contacts with third-party suppliers. As a result, Columbia pointed out, customer survey results may well reflect experiences the customers have had with those parties, rather than with the NGDC.
Response: We believe that a well-developed questionnaire will allow the majority of consumers to discern that the survey questions pertain to a specific NGDC and not a third-party entity. We recommend that the introduction to the survey specifically name the NGDC as the company about which the survey is being conducted. We also believe that Columbia's concern will be at least partially addressed by the requirement of a uniform survey instrument. If consumer confusion about NGDC/third-party entity does prove to be a problem, we would expect that it would affect all NGDCs equally, especially if all NGDC surveys ask the same questions of the customer.
In the proposed rulemaking order, we proposed the formation of a transaction survey working group to work out the details of the survey. We specifically designed the survey timetable to allow enough time for the group to complete its tasks. We hope to use the EDC working group as a model. That group already ''invented the wheel''; it laid the groundwork for a uniform customer survey. The Commission, represented by the BCS and the NGDCs, will collaborate to work out the details of the survey for the major gas companies.
We believe that the issue raised by Columbia is an appropriate item of discussion for the working group. We are confident that the group can find a solution to this issue that will work for the benefit of all the NGDCs.
Paragraph (2) Questions.
The PGA raised a concern that the requirements would require NGDCs to survey recipients of dunning calls. The PGA notes that it sees no value to adding these calls to the transaction survey.
Response: We agree with the PGA, however, we believe that this issue is best left to the discussions of the transaction survey working group. The EDC working group decided to survey only those customers whose contact with the company was customer-initiated. The Commission approved this decision. The NGDC working group may come to a similar agreement.
Paragraph (3) Uniform data.
Columbia commented that the Commission should not mandate the use of a uniform survey for all NGDCs. Columbia argued that many NGDCs already conduct customer satisfaction surveys.
Similarly, the PGA in its commented notes that many NGDCs already conduct customer satisfaction surveys as a matter of sound business practice and argues that allowing them to continue these current surveys would be considerably less costly than forcing them to develop new ones.
IRRC recommended that we should clarify what ''instruments and procedures'' are to be used by the NGDCs in providing the Commission with uniform survey data.
Response: An overall primary objective of the Commission for this rulemaking is to have the NGDCs gather and report uniform quality of service data that can be compared among the Pennsylvania NGDCs. We believe that it is of paramount importance that the survey questionnaire, sampling procedures, method of conducting the survey, analysis of results and reporting format be sufficiently uniform to support the Commission's overall primary objective. As stated earlier, the establishment of benchmarks will necessitate a separate proceeding, however, we do not want to automatically preclude the establishment of standards that could be set for all NGDCs. Without the prescribed uniformity, the Commission will not have a valid way of comparing the customer service performance of the NGDCs in many important areas. The uniformity factor will aid the Commission by allowing it to compare ''apples with apples'' rather than producing findings that may be biased by a variety of factors. For example, survey language and response choices can strongly influence survey results. A question to measure employee courtesy may elicit one response from a customer if worded one way and a different response from the same customer if worded another way. This is why we are so adamant that all companies use the same survey questionnaire.
Our experience with the EDCs proves that the customer survey can be conducted without great expense to a company. Most of the EDCs, through collaboration with the Pennsylvania Electric Association, jointly hired a single research firm to administer the survey for all the companies at a very economical price. We have chosen to give the NGDCs the option of who should conduct their surveys but we believe that it will not be as costly as the NGDCs fear.
As we stated when we prepared the final rulemaking for the EDC reporting requirements for quality of service benchmarks and standards, our original intention in collecting customer service data from companies was to request records from the companies on number of appointments kept, response time to installation of service and repair requests, and speed of posting customer payments. Experts in quality of service measurement commonly accept all these measures as measures of customer service performance. However, EDC representatives convinced us that to require this information would be unduly burdensome on the EDCs. As a result, we decided to use the customer transaction survey to monitor performance. We believe that the NGDCs would also argue that to require this information would be burdensome and costly to measure and report to the Commission. Thus, we have decided to use the transaction customer survey for the NGDCs in order to allow the Commission the ability to track customer service performance in these areas.
As indicated earlier, the NGDCs and the BCS will form a working group to work out the details of carrying out the transaction survey. Together the group will develop a survey questionnaire, a sampling methodology, a method of conducting the survey, as well as a method of reporting survey results to the Commission. The charge of the working group will be to develop the details of the transaction survey process that the working group, including the BCS, agrees will result in standard, comparable information being reported to the Commission.
We accepted IRRC's recommendation to clarify this section and revised the language of this section:
The NGDCs shall carry out the transaction survey process using survey questionnaires, sample selection procedures, methods of conducting the surveys and any other procedures associated with the survey, including provision of survey results, that they and the Commission agree will provide the Commission with uniform data that can be used to directly compare customer service performance among Pennsylvania NGDCs.Paragraph (6) Commission approval.
IRRC posed several questions about this provision. First, they ask when the review and approval will occur. Second, IRRC asks if the approval is done through a formal proceeding and, if not, what type of proceeding will be used.
Response: We plan for Commission final review and approval no later than December 1, 2001. Our goal, however, is to have preliminary agreement on various aspects of the survey plan prior to that date. This will enable the NGDCs to begin implementation of their processes so they can start conducting the surveys in January 2002.
The Commission plans to use a collaborative working group process involving representatives from the NGDCs and the Commission's BCS. The objective of the working group will be to obtain consensus on the questionnaire and procedures that the working group members think would result in uniform data being collected and reported to the Commission to accurately reflect NGDC customer service performance. If the working group model is successful in obtaining the stated objective, the BCS will grant, in writing, Commission approval of the document containing the written procedures. If the working group is not successful in obtaining its stated objectives and consensus is not reached, a more formal process will be used by the Commission to determine the questionnaire content and procedures.
We have revised this paragraph as follows:
(6) Commission Approval. On or before December 1, 2001, the Commission will approve the survey questionnaire, as well as procedures for case selection, sampling, conducting the survey, analyzing results and reporting to the Commission.§ 62.35. NGDCs with fewer than 100,000 residential accounts.
Although we received no comments regarding a clarity issue here, we revised the language of this section because we believe that the revision increases clarity and consistency. We added the word ''residential'' before the word ''accounts'' in order to make this section consistent with its title:
Beginning September 1, 2002, each NGDC with less than 100,000 residential accounts shall report to the Commission the following information in lieu of §§ 62.33 and 62.34 (relating to reporting requirements; and customer surveys):§ 62.35.
Paragraph (1).
IRRC commented that this section requires an NGDC with fewer than 100,000 residential accounts to report to the Commission the results of a mail survey of a sample of the NGDC customers who have had interactions with the NGDC. IRRC noted that the regulation does not specify the required sample size and notes that for clarity, the Commission should include the required sample size in the final-form regulations. In a discussion with IRRC, we indicated that we intended to ask each small NGDC to survey every 10th customer that contacts the company. IRRC recommends that we include this quota in the regulation. IRRC also suggested that the phrase ''one or more representatives of'' is unnecessary and should be deleted.
Response: We agree with IRRC's suggestion to specify a sampling plan for the smaller NGDCs and have revised the language of this section accordingly. We also agree with IRRC's suggestion regarding the unnecessary phrase and have deleted it from the final regulation. Thus, the revised paragraph is as follows:
(1) The results of a mail survey of a sample of the NGDC customers who have had interactions with a representative of the NGDC. The survey sample shall consist of every 10th consumer who has contacted the company.Paragraph (3).
IRRC requested that we address the approval process that the Commission will use to approve the mail survey questionnaire.
Response: The BCS will approve the mail survey through an informal process. We expect that we will follow the same procedure as we did in the electric industry when the small EDCs petitioned the Commission for permission to conduct a mail survey rather than a telephone survey. The BCS modified the telephone survey agreed to by larger EDCs into a draft mail format. The BCS circulated the draft mail survey to the smallest EDCs who made suggestions for revisions. The BCS incorporated the suggested revisions and produced the final mail survey questionnaire. The BCS sent it to the EDCs who added their company names and/or logos to the form. The companies began using the questionnaire to survey their customers shortly thereafter.
We expect that a similar process will take place with the gas industry. However, we have modified the language of the regulation slightly to indicate that the BCS will ''develop'' the survey questionnaire that all the smaller NGDCs will use, based on the telephone questionnaire that the larger NGDCs will use. This should reduce the burden that the smaller NGDCs may be anticipating regarding the development of the survey. Thus, this paragraph is as follows:
(3) Each NGDC shall use the same mail survey questionnaire which shall be developed by the BCS, with advice from the relevant NGDCs. The mail survey questions shall measure customer perceptions regarding:§ 62.36. Informal complaints to the BCS.
(a) Residential informal consumer complaints and payment arrangement requests.
IRRC notes a discrepancy in the proposed regulation between the term ''justified consumer complaint rate'' here and ''justified informal consumer complaint rate'' in the definition section.
Response: With respect to IRRC's suggestion, we revised this section to use the term as it appears in the definitions.
(b) Informally verified infractions.
IRRC points out that in this section the term infraction rate appears in quotation marks and thus may not be the same infraction rate that is defined in § 62.32.
Response: The infraction rate in § 62.36(b) is the same as the infraction rate that appears in § 62.32 Definitions and should not appear in quotation marks. The BCS accepted IRRC's recommendation and removed the quotation marks from the final-form regulations.
Other Issues:
Various parties made the following comments to the proposed rulemaking. These comments did not pertain to a specific section. The comments and our responses appear in the paragraphs that follow:
IRRC asks us to consider adding a section that cross-references the requirements for petitioning for a waiver of the requirements of this regulation. The preamble to the proposed regulation references § 5.43 (relating to petition for issuance, amendment waiver or repeal of regulations).
Response: It is the position of the Commission's Law Bureau that the regulations in § 5.43 adequately provide any affected party the right to petition the Commission for the amendment or waiver of a regulation. Therefore it is the Law Bureau's position that it is not necessary to add a specific waiver section to the instant regulation. As a result, we did not add a section that cross-references the requirements for petitioning for a waiver in § 5.43.
[Continued on next Web Page]
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.
