NOTICES
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY REVIEW COMMISSION
Notice of Comments Issued
[39 Pa.B. 5997]
[Saturday, October 10, 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 regulation. 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final-form regulation must be submitted within 2 years of the close of the public comment period or it will be deemed withdrawn.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 Issues 57-269 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Natural Gas Distribution Companies and the Promotion of Competitive Retail Markets
39 Pa.B. 3461
(July 11, 2009)
8/25/09 9/24/09 4-91 Department of Community and Economic Development
Industrialized Housing
39 Pa.B. 4423
(August 1, 2009)
Volume 39, Number 31, Pennsylvania Bulletin, Page 4423
8/31/09 9/30/09 18-415 Department of Transportation
Transportation Enhancement Grants from Automated Red Light Enforcement System Revenues
39 Pa.B. 4435
(August 1, 2009)8/31/09 9/30/09
____
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Regulation #57-269 (IRRC #2772)
Natural Gas Distribution Companies and the Promotion of Competitive Retail Markets
September 24, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the July 11, 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 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. General.—Consistency with statute; Reasonableness.
Fostering competition
Under the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act (Act) (66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2203(3)), the PUC is directed, in part, to ''require natural gas distribution companies to unbundle natural gas supply services such that separate charges for services can be set forth in tariffs and on retail customers' bills.'' We believe the simplicity of how this is presented to customers will ultimately affect the participation of customers in competition. Ideally, this could be accomplished by a separation of total cost into distribution cost and supply cost. Hence, a customer could shop and compare the supply cost.
This regulation presents a complex regulatory scheme that might be incomprehensible to most customers and as a result discourage them from participating in competition. Several commentators, including the Energy Association of Pennsylvania, believe the process established in this regulation is complicated. We cite, as one example, that ''GPRR—Gas procurement reduction rate'' is defined as ''an equal offsetting credit to the GPC [gas procurement charge], billed to all residential and small commercial customers.'' Since the GPRR is charged to all customers regardless of whether they shop, how does GPRR demonstrate a separation of costs? The application of the term GPRR is further complicated by its application in Subsection 62.223(e), where the components of the ''NGPA [net gas procurement adjustment] tariff rider'' would include both the GPRR and GPC, which by definition are ''equal offsetting'' credits, and therefore would negate each other. While we recognize this is an attempt to separate costs, this method is confusing, even if it is technically correct.
In general, customers pay a rate for their service that represents tremendously detailed calculations and components, yet those details are, in the end, boiled down to a tariff rate. Customers generally would be confused by all of the components of a base rate case that result in a tariff rate. We recommend that the PUC reconsider the complexity of this regulation and the effect of that complexity on customer participation in competition. We also recommend that the PUC produce an example of a bill or pricing comparison that would be presented to the customer to illustrate the result of the final-form regulation and how it would foster competition.
Restructuring in a manner that does not unreasonably discriminate
Under 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2203(5), the PUC must ''require that restructuring of the natural gas industry be implemented in a manner that does not unreasonably discriminate against one customer class for the benefit of another.'' The regulation envisions future base rate filings and cost of service studies. In base rate cases, the PUC considers all issues and costs to establish just and reasonable rates that are then allocated to customer classes by a tariff filing.
Several sections of the regulation require rate filings for individual cost components in conjunction with filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f) and eventually in base rate cases filed under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1308(d). This regulation contemplates tariff riders and other filings to accomplish cost separation. These filings, required in conjunction with filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f), are limited in scope. We have three concerns. First, the PUC should explain how these filings will not amount to single issue ratemaking. Second, it is not clear how the regulation protects against cross-subsidization between shopping and non-shopping customers in general, and particularly in regard to the supplier of last resort. Finally, the PUC should explain how the provisions in Sections 62.223, 62.224, 62.225, 62.226 and 62.227 will properly separate costs in compliance with 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2203(5) which protects customers from unreasonable discrimination against one customer class for the benefit of another.
Potential costs imposed by the regulation
At the core of this proposed regulation, the PUC is attempting to establish an ''apples to apples'' comparison of rates. To compare prices, a customer needs dollar amounts from the supplier of last resort and other gas suppliers. This regulation requires rate filings in conjunction with filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f) and eventually in base rate cases filed under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1308(d). The nature of the separation of costs from base rates is obviously complex based on this regulation and presumably will be subject to the scrutiny and costs of litigation. Has the PUC considered any other mechanism to establish a fair price comparison that would meet the requirements of the Act? The PUC should review the requirements in the regulation to make sure that the regulation itself does not impose the costs of base rate cases and extensive annual litigation of filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307. The PUC should identify or estimate the potential costs imposed by the regulation and explain how the savings to customers from improved competition will outweigh the costs imposed by litigation.
Statutory authority
In the Regulatory Analysis Form (RAF) and Preamble for this proposed regulation, the statutory authority for the rulemaking is identified as Section 2204(g) of the Act (66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2204(g)). Section 2204(g) directs the PUC to conduct an investigation concerning competition in the sales of natural gas supplies. However, it does not address rulemaking authority. The statutory authority for the PUC to propose and adopt regulations implementing the Act is set forth in Section 2204(a) (66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2204(a)). The PUC should identify Section 2204(a) of the Act as the statutory authority in the RAF and Preamble when it submits the final-form regulation.
2. Section 62.221. Purpose.—Clarity.
Retail gas customer
This phrase is defined in Section 2202 of the Act (66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2202), and is used throughout the Act. It is defined, in part, as ''a direct purchaser of natural gas supply services or natural gas distribution services, other than a natural gas supplier. . . .'' This definition is not limited to any customer class. However, this section of the regulation limits the purpose to fostering competitive service to ''residential and small commercial customers.'' We recognize the PUC is focusing on a lack of competition in these customer classes. As several commentators observed, however, many provisions in the regulation either directly affect all customers, or raise issues inseparable from all customers. The PUC should explain why this section and the regulation are limited to ''residential and small commercial customers'' and how the regulation does not affect all service provided to ''retail gas customers'' as defined in the Act.
Small commercial customer
This section uses the phrase ''small commercial customer.'' However, the term defined in Section 62.222 is ''small business customer.'' This section should use the defined term. The same problem occurs in the definition of the ''GPRR-gas procurement reduction rate'' in Sections 62.222 and in 62.223(e). Both the definition and the subsection use the term ''small commercial customer'' and not ''small business customer.''
3. Section 62.222. Definitions.—Consistency; Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Clarity.
GPC—Gas procurement charge
This definition refers to a ''charge'' as ''a mechanism by which the effect of natural gas procurement costs removed from an NGDC's [natural gas distribution company] base rates are recovered.'' This language is vague because it describes a ''mechanism'' and its effect. A definition also loses clarity when it uses the term being defined. This definition should directly state what costs the charge encompasses.
GPRR—Gas procurement reduction rate
This term is defined as ''an equal offsetting credit to the GPC, billed to all residential and small commercial customers.'' Section 62.223(e) is the only place this term is used and it also describes the GPRR as ''an equal offsetting credit to the GPC, billed to all residential and small commercial customers.'' Therefore, the definition is redundant and unnecessary.
NGPA—Net gas procurement adjustment
This definition is described as a ''tariff rider'' in both the definition and Section 62.223(d). This definition is also vague because it describes a concept or goal, but does not increase the understanding of the term or its components.
Natural gas supply service
This term is defined in the Act. See 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2202. The regulation should reference the Act similar to other definitions in this section such as ''natural gas supplier.''
PGC—Purchase gas cost
This term is defined in this section as ''natural gas costs which are collected, with adjustments, by NGDCs from their customers under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f).'' Again, a definition loses clarity and usefulness when it uses the term being defined. The Preambles states: ''Generally, purchase gas cost (PGC) expenses include the cost of the natural gas itself as well as everything spent to get the gas through the interstate pipeline system to the city gate.'' However, another paragraph in the Preamble states that procurement costs may include: ''operation and maintenance expense, any procurement-related investment costs, and payroll costs for employees involved in supply acquisition.'' Although specific costs will be unique to some degree for each NGDC, the definition should provide descriptions or examples of the costs that may be included under this definition. Additionally, it is unclear in the regulation whether the PGC includes procurement costs that are mentioned in the GPC definition.
PTC—Price to compare
It is not clear whether PTC is a rate or a cost. A customer would need a rate to make a comparison, or at least a volume of gas associated with a cost. The PUC should review this definition and the use of the term so that it is clear what will result from this regulation and how a customer can use the PTC to shop among the Supplier of Last Resort (SOLR) and gas suppliers.
4. Section 62.223. PTC.—Consistency; Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Clarity.
Monthly adjustments
In the Preamble, the PUC explains that it is requiring natural gas distribution companies to adjust their purchased gas cost monthly to better reflect market fluctuations. This is implemented in Subsections (h) and (j). Several commentators do not believe this regulation complies with 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f)(1)(ii) which states, in part,
In the event that the natural gas distribution company adjusts rates more frequently than quarterly, it shall offer retail gas customers a fixed-rate option which recovers natural gas costs over a 12-month period, subject to an annual reconciliation. . . .The PUC should explain how the regulation complies with 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f)(1)(ii).
Further, under 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2206(c) and (d), the PUC is required to establish customer information ''to enable retail gas customers to make informed choices'' and guidelines for consumer education to ''provide retail gas customers with information necessary to help them make appropriate choices as to their natural gas service.'' While we agree that accurate comparisons are needed, we, as well as most commentators, question whether monthly adjustments will result in further confusion to the customer. Price comparison is critical to competition. However, if a customer switches suppliers and the subsequent bill does not substantiate the projected savings, we question whether that customer would venture into competitive rates again. How to best accomplish valid comparisons of rates is a very difficult proposition given the fluctuations in gas market prices. We recommend that the PUC revisit monthly comparisons to determine the best way to fulfill the Act's requirements relating to customer information and consumer education.
Costs of the Supplier of Last Resort
The Act requires that there be a ''supplier of last resort.'' See 66 Pa.C.S. § 2207. The readiness and availability of a supplier of last resort requires that there be adequate procurement. PUC Vice Chairman Tyrone J. Christy's statement included in the Preamble and the Office of Consumer Advocate's comments both raised similar concerns that ''non-shopping consumers'' will be forced to pay higher costs that in effect subsidize consumers who shop. Some procurement costs are related to maintaining the readiness of the SOLR. It is not clear in the regulation that all customers will share in the cost of a SOLR, even though a SOLR would have to be available to most customers. The PUC should explain how this proposed regulation will insure that procurement costs for SOLRs are distributed equitably among all consumers who may have to rely on a SOLR.
Overall clarity of Section 62.223
We find that this subsection lacks clarity, as drafted in the proposed regulation. We recommend that the PUC review this provision and rewrite it so that the final-form regulation clearly sets forth what the PTC is, how the PTC is established, what the underlying formulas are and what must be filed with the PUC. We provide the following suggestions to assist in the development of a clearer section on PTC:
• The section shifts between filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f) and filings under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1308(d) and simultaneously describes components of costs and charges. We suggest separating the filing requirements from the description of components.
• The regulation is not clear regarding whether Section 1307 filings would continue to be required after a Section 1308(d) filing.
• Two different subsections describe the formation of the PTC. Initially, Subsection (a) indicates that the GPC will be added to the cost of supply rate ''to create a comparable PTC.'' Yet, Subsection (d) states that the ''NGPA shall be designed to create a rate neutral adjustment to currently existing base rates and the PGC rate to develop a reasonable PTC. . . .'' The final-form regulation should clarify the development of the PTC.
• In Subsection (a), it appears the phrase ''the cost of supply rate developed under 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f) (relating to sliding scale of rates; adjustments)'' is the same as the defined term PGC. If so, the phrase should be replaced with the defined term. If not, the PUC should explain the difference.
• The first sentence of Subsection (b) states the NGDC must remove costs in a Section 1308(d) filing, and the remainder of the provision states a GPC must be established in Section 1307 filings. This provision appears to be written in the reverse order of what would typically occur. Since the GPC would already be established and possibly litigated in Section 1307 filings, this known GPC should be used to describe how it must be shown in the NGDC's next Section 1308(d) filing.
• Language discussing the GPC is scattered throughout five different subsections. It may be clearer to address the GPC in one subsection where possible. For example, Subsections (h) and (i) could be combined.
• It would appear that Subsections (c) and (d) addressing the NGPA could be combined.
• Subsection (e) discusses the NGPA, GPC and GPRR in a lengthy sentence that is unclear in its intent, and Subsection (f) addresses both the GPC and NGPA. Both subsections need to be re-written in a structured format that clarifies and supports their intent. See Sections 2.5, 2.8 and 2.9 on pages 6 and 7 of the Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin Style Manual.
5. Section 62.224. POR programs.—Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Implications relating to POR Programs
We have three general questions and concerns relating to POR programs and the potential positive and negative effects. First, the PUC should explain further why it is proper for the unregulated charges by an NGS to rely on the regulated NGDC (and potentially on the PUC's authority) for collection. Second, how will the NGDC separate its operating costs from those related to collecting revenues for an unregulated entity? Finally, how will the costs and revenues from a POR program be considered in the filings envisioned in this rulemaking, including a base rate filing.
Subsection (a)
Paragraph (10) requires that ''the NGDC shall track its POR program purchases and collections.'' This requirement is vague because it is not clear how to comply. The regulation should state a purpose for tracking, specify what information is required and how long the information must be kept.
Subsection (c)
Commentators have questioned the use of accounts receivable to satisfy the security required for licensing. Commentators stated this is being considered in other rulemakings. We also question why this provision, relating to licensure requirements, is placed under this section. The PUC should delete this provision or explain why it is needed under Section 62.224.
6. Section 62.225. Release, assignment or transfer of capacity.—Need; Clarity.
Duplication of statute
This section is very similar to the Act at 66 Pa.C.S. § 2204(d). The Preamble notes the similarity and some differences. However, it does not explain the need for repeating the statute in the proposed regulation. The PUC should explain the need for this section or delete it from the final-form regulation.
7. Section 62.226. NGDC costs of competition related activities.—Reasonableness; Implementation procedure; Need; Clarity.
Competition related activities
Since the costs of ''competition related activities'' are not established or defined in this section or the regulation, it is not possible to determine the components, limits or impact of this provision. Without this direction from the PUC, the subjective nature of determining costs related to competition may expose customers to paying costs that may not be in their best interest, may not be their responsibility, may not be spent effectively or that are redundant to advertising costs already reflected in the NGDC base rates. The PUC needs to provide guidance in the regulation on what specifically are NGDC costs of competition related activities.
We also have concerns relating directly to 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2203(5), under which the PUC must ''require that restructuring of the natural gas industry be implemented in a manner that does not unreasonably discriminate against one customer class for the benefit of another.'' While the costs of promoting competition and advertising under this section will be directly paid by existing customers, it is not clear how the profits produced by the advertising will be considered in light of 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 2203(5). The PUC should either delete this section or amend the regulation to strictly interpret what costs may be claimed and to protect customers from paying imprudent costs, redundant costs or costs borne by one customer class for the benefit of another.
8. Section 62.227. Regulatory assessments.—Fiscal impact; Reasonableness; Need; Clarity.
Need to address regulatory assessments
Commentators, including the Industrial Customer Groups and Office of Consumer Advocate, raised serious questions related to this section and its inclusion in the proposed rulemaking. The concerns are three-fold.
First, commentators questioned the need for this assessment stating that the costs associated with the regulatory assessment are not a large expense that would require special ratemaking treatment. What is the need for any change in the practice of having NGDCs recover these costs through their base rates?
Second, the section does not appear to have any relationship to or impact upon the ''price to compare'' or competition, and, therefore, it is unclear why it is a part of this proposed regulation.
Third, NGDCs would incur costs in the filings and procedures required to separate these costs from their base rates. Yet, the PUC provides no justification for this additional expense. The PUC should explain the need for this section and the rationale for its inclusion in this rulemaking, or delete it from the final-form regulation.
____
Department of Community and Economic Development
Regulation #4-91 (IRRC #2776)
Industrialized Housing
September 30, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 1, 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 Community and Economic Development (Department) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
General—Statutory authority; Feasibility; Reasonableness; Implementation procedures. The Department cites Section 5 of the Industrialized Housing Act (Act) for its authority to promulgate this proposed rulemaking. 35 P. S. § 1651.5. Specifically, Section 5(a) sets forth the regulatory authority of the Department. In addition, the second subsection provides that:
The department shall hold public hearings on rules and regulations proposed to be promulgated, amended, or repealed, consistent with the provisions of the . . . ''Administrative Agency Law'' . . . and the ''Commonwealth Documents Law.''35 P. S. 35 P. S. § 1651.5(b).
Although we recognize that the industry acknowledged the efforts of the Department in keeping affected parties informed and involved during the development of this regulation, it is unclear whether the Department held public hearings pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Act. If no hearing was held, the Department should provide an explanation and discuss whether it intends to do so before submitting a final-form regulation.
____
*Department of Transportation
Regulation #18-415 (IRRC #2779)
Transportation Enhancement Grants from Automated Red Light Enforcement System Revenues
September 30, 2009 We submit for your consideration the following comments on the proposed rulemaking published in the August 1, 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 Transportation (Department) to respond to all comments received from us or any other source.
1. Eligible sponsors.—Legislative intent; Reasonableness.
Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3116(a), the use of an automated red light enforcement system is limited to first class cities, which is the City of Philadelphia. Fines collected from violators, less the administrator's costs, are deposited into the Motor License Fund and ''shall be used by the department to develop, by regulation, a Transportation Enhancements Grant Program.'' See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3116(l)(2). The statute also includes limitations on the use of automated red light enforcement systems and limits revenues to no more than five percent of a city of the first class' annual budget. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3116(e), (g), (h), (m), (n), (o) and (p).
Section 233.2 of the regulation defines ''sponsor'' as,
A local authority, metropolitan planning organization, rural planning organization, county planning organization, or Commonwealth agency applying for, or receiving, a transportation enhancement grant under this chapter.Also, Subsection 233.5(a) states a sponsor may submit an application for a grant and Subsection 233.8(d) includes the term sponsor in the criteria for the grant selection process. As written, anyone who meets the broad definition of sponsor can apply for and receive a grant, which includes entities both inside and outside the City of Philadelphia.
The City of Philadelphia objects to the regulation because it would allow fines collected in Philadelphia to be used for grants anywhere in the state. The City of Philadelphia believes the legislation was intended to only use grant money for safety improvements in the City of Philadelphia. A similar concern was stated by the Philadelphia Parking Authority and former Representative George Kenney.
Representative Richard A. Geist, Republican Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, submitted a letter on September 21, 2009, stating that in his position as Majority Chairman of the House Transportation Committee he led the floor debate over the enabling legislation in the House of Representatives that became Act 123 of 2002. He states that when crafting and debating the legislation ''we were adamant that the pilot program was not to be used as a revenue generator for the City of Philadelphia. Specifically, to guard against that possibility, we included the provision that all excess revenue generated by the program be deposited in the Commonwealth's Motor License Fund and be used for transportation projects throughout the state.'' See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3116(l)(2). To support his position, he included with his letter the 2002 House Legislative Journal documenting the floor debate. He is concerned that the regulation does not explicitly prohibit the City of Philadelphia from capturing all of the grants via the grant process. Therefore, he respectfully suggests that a caveat be added to the regulation that would explicitly prohibit the City of Philadelphia from laying claim to all of the excess revenues generated by the pilot program to provide an assurance that legislative intent would be maintained.
In the Preamble, the Department explains:
Other affected entities are sponsors that choose to apply for, or receive, a transportation enhancement grant under the provisions of the proposed regulations. These include local authorities (county, municipal and other local boards or bodies having authority to enact laws relating to traffic), metropolitan planning organizations, rural planning organizations, county planning organizations or Commonwealth agencies.The Department should explain its determination that grants should be made available to all of the entities described in the proposed definition of sponsor and explain how the grants will be geographically distributed.
2. Section 233.2. Definitions.—Need.
Secretary
This term is defined, but we were unable to find it used in the regulation. We suggest deleting it.
3. Section 233.5. Application procedure.—Clarity.
Address to submit applications
Subsection (a) requires applications to be submitted to the ''Director: Attention—Transportation Enhancement Grants from Automated Red Light Enforcement System Revenues.'' We recommend including the full address in Subsection (a) so that sponsors know where to send the application.
Other information requested by the Department
Paragraph (c)(11) requires the sponsor to provide other information ''that is requested by the Department.'' We recommend limiting the scope of this provision to information related to the project.
4. Section 233.6. Deadline for applications.—Reasonableness; Clarity.
Complete in a timely fashion
The phrase ''in a timely fashion'' at the end of Subsection (d) is vague. The Department should replace this phrase with a definite time frame, such as ''by July 15.''
5. Section 233.8. Grant selection process and criteria.—Reasonableness; Clarity.
Next fiscal year
The deadline for applications is June 30. Subsection (a) states applications ''will be considered for funding during the next fiscal year.'' The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) commented that it presumes the next fiscal year would begin July 1, which is right after applications are received. PSATS notes that, depending on how quickly applications are processed, the construction season could be over before applications are processed. We agree that it is not clear what is meant by the ''next fiscal year.'' It is important for applicants to understand how soon the grants may be forthcoming because the applicants are working on safety improvements to their transportation systems. We recommend that the Department review and clarify the timing of the applications, the processing of applications and the offer of a grant.
Other factors
In Subsection (c), it is not clear what is meant by the phrase ''and other factors.'' What other factors would the Director consider that are not already specified in Subsections (d) and (e)? A sponsor should have full notice regarding how the application will be considered. We recommend deleting this phrase. Alternatively, if the Department knows of other factors that will be considered, those should be included in the regulation.
Other criteria
After listing the criteria that will be considered in Paragraphs (d)(1) to (7), the criteria conclude with Paragraph (d)(8) which states, ''Other criteria which the Department determines should be considered.'' Given that sponsors are competing for grants, it would not be fair to approve or deny a grant based on ''other criteria'' that other sponsors were not given an equal opportunity to meet. Paragraph (d)(8) also implies the criteria could be altered outside the regulatory process. We recommend deleting Paragraph (d)(8).
6. Section 233.11. Audit and recordkeeping.—Clarity.
Exceeds the standards of this chapter
Paragraph (a)(5) states, in part, ''. . . If this elapsed time exceeds the standards of this chapter, the Department may require the return of interest earned on payments made.'' The phrase ''the standards of this chapter'' is vague. The regulation should cross-reference or state the specific time requirements that may not be exceeded and that would cause the Department to require the return of interest earned.
ARTHUR COCCODRILLI,
Chairperson
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 09-1909. Filed for public inspection October 9, 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.
