Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.

PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 96-2069a

[26 Pa.B. 5915]

[Continued from previous Web Page]

Commissioners Present:  John R. McGinley, Jr., Chairperson; Robert J. Harbison, III, Vice Chairperson; Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman

Public meeting held
November 21, 1996

Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Commission--Administration of the Training Program; Doc. No. 17-55

Order

   On May 21, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Commission (MPOETC). This rulemaking would amend 37 Pa. Code by adding a new Chapter 203 and by repealing Chapter 201. The authority for this regulation is section 5 of the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Law, act of June 18, 1974 (act) (53 P. S. § 744(15)) which grants the MPOETC the authority to make rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement education and training programs for police officers. The proposed regulation was published in the June 15, 1996 Pennsylvania Bulletin with a 30-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on October 25, 1996.

   The purpose of this regulation is to implement mandatory recruit training for all police officers and to provide for certification of those individuals who successfully complete the training, who are employed by a political subdivision or certain colleges or are deputy sheriffs employed by the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office. The regulation provides that certification must be renewed every 2 years and mandates that an officer must complete at least 12 hours of in-service training yearly and maintain certification in first aid, CPR and weapons qualification. The regulation also sets physical, psychological and criminal standards for police officers. Those officers that do not meet the standards are subject to decertification.

   The proposed Chapter 203 also establishes certification requirements for training schools, including minimum equipment and space standards, annual inspections by the MPOETC and procedures pertaining to the revocation of a school's certification. Schools are also required to comply with public safety standards established under the Fire and Panic Act.

   The regulation establishes the basic police training course curriculum consisting of 16 prescribed areas of instruction including: Pennsylvania criminal law; patrol procedures and operations; and human relations skills. The rulemaking also includes a cheating policy which bars an individual observed cheating from further participation in required training. Requirements are also provided for the certification of basic and special police training instructors.

   Section 749(a) of the act specifically establishes that the MPOETC ''shall provide for reimbursement to each political subdivision of 100% of the allowable tuition and the ordinary and necessary living and travel expenses incurred by their police officers while attending certified municipal police basic training schools.'' The regulation reiterates the requirement contained in the act.

   The MPOETC reports that there are currently 21 schools certified to provide basic training across the State; five of those schools are run by the Pennsylvania State Police. Annually, there are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 new officers that participate in the 13-week basic training course while there are 17,000 to 18,000 existing officers that participate in the in-service training.

   Over 80% of the MPOETC's annual budget of $80 million is utilized for grants and subsidies that pay for basic, mandatory in-service and nonmandatory in-service training. A 13-week (520 course hours) basic training course ranges in cost from $2,000 to $3,000 depending upon the location of the school providing the training.

   The MPOETC notes that since the requirements of the act, enacted in 1988, are currently being met on a voluntary basis, no new costs are anticipated as a result of the promulgation of this rulemaking.

   As noted previously, all officers must comply with mandatory in-service training, first aid, CPR and weapons qualifications annually, or they may be decertified. Therefore, some officers who were ''grandfathered'' for basic training purposes, will now have to comply with the mandatory in-service training for the first time.

   The cost to municipalities will be for transportation of officers to in-service training schools and in maintaining first aid, CPR and firearms qualifications and costs associated with paying overtime or salaries to the officers attending the training.

   The MPOETC has implemented nearly every suggestion contained in our Comments. There are only two minor issues where the MPOETC declined to adopt our suggestions; for both issues it provided a compromise.

   The first issue relates to the request from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of State Parks, for the inclusion of a specific provision which would permit the MPOETC to provide instructor training to law enforcement officers employed by the Bureau of State Parks. The MPOETC elected not to amend the final-form regulation primarily because there are a number of other agencies who have also requested instructor training. The MPOETC reports that its resources would not permit it to train a large number of instructors from outside agencies. However, the MPOETC notes that officers from these agencies are able to receive training under section 203.82(b).

   The second issue relates to our recommendation to include the specific number of course hours required to complete the basic police training course. We made this recommendation because we believe that the number of hours is essential information that should be included in the regulation. However, the MPOETC declined to adopt the recommendation because the MPOETC provides the schools with the entire curriculum which may not be modified in any way. Additionally, the curriculum is periodically revised as a result of court decisions or through outside consultants hired to review the curriculum. However, to address our concern of ensuring public notification, the MPOETC agreed to amend the section by adding language indicating that it will publish notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and its own newsletter whenever the number of course hours changes.

   We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. This final-form regulation establishes minimum training standards for the selection and continued employment of municipal police officers within the Commonwealth and reflects the provisions of the act amended in 1988.

Therefore, It Is Ordered That:

   1.  Regulation No. 17-55 from the Municipal Police Officers' Education and Training Commission, as submitted to the Commission on October 25, 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 (abstaining); Arthur Coccodrilli; John F. Mizner; Irvin G. Zimmerman

Public meeting held
November 21, 1996

Department of Agriculture--Deletion of ''Grade AA'' Regulatory Standards for Milk; Doc. No. 2-108

Order

   On July 17, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this proposed regulation from the Department of Agriculture (Department). This rulemaking is proposing to delete the provisions of 7 Pa. Code Chapter 59 that allow milk processed in the Commonwealth to be sold in the Commonwealth as ''Grade AA'' milk. The amendments are proposed under the authority of the act of July 2, 1935 (Act) (31 P. S. §§ 645--660f) which authorizes the Department to regulate the production, processing, storage and packaging of milk to safeguard human health. The proposed regulation was published in the July 27, 1996 Pennsylvania Bulletin, with a 30-day public comment period. The final-form regulation was submitted to the Commission on October 22, 1996.

   The National Council of Interstate Milk Shippers (NCIMS), of which Pennsylvania is a member, prohibits its members from developing super-grade designations for the quality of milk. NCIMS has determined that using the ''Grade AA'' standard violates the interstate agreement under which ''Grade A'' milk moves unimpeded in interstate commerce.

   NCIMS is an organization created by the United States Food and Drug Administration Milk Safety Branch, state regulatory agencies and the Nation's dairy industry to standardize regulations to ensure the safety of the milk supply and to facilitate the interstate shipment of milk. All states are members of this organization. NCIMS developed a uniform set of standards (Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance) which allows member states' milk to move in interstate commerce to other member states without those states imposing any further sanitation or testing requirements.

   Under current regulations, milk processed within the Commonwealth may be designated Grade AA if it meets prescribed chemical, bacteriological and temperature standards. The Grade AA designation of milk is a voluntary standard that dairies may elect to meet. The distinguishing factor in the preparation of Grade A verses Grade AA milk is the prescribed limits of acceptable bacteria. Grade AA milk must have lower amounts of bacteria per milliliter than Grade A milk. The bacteria limits are not indicative of product safety but rather are reflective of the quality of the milk.

   The Department revised its milk sanitation regulations in 1982 and planned to delete the provisions relating to Grade AA at that time. However, a committee of dairy processors requested the retention of Grade AA standards and agreed to refrain from seeking certification for the interstate shipment of their milk in exchange for the retention of those standards.

   At the time, the Department believed retention of the Grade AA standard for certain milk processed and sold only within this Commonwealth would not be violative of NCIMS standards and would not place milk processed by other NCIMS states at a competitive disadvantage. However, out-of-State dairy processors who process milk in compliance with NCIMS Grade A milk standards have complained that they are at a competitive disadvantage when marketing their milk in Pennsylvania. In fact, the larger Pennsylvania dairies have also complained about the competitive disadvantage they experience when marketing their Grade A milk against Grade AA milk.

   On December 27, 1995, the NCIMS ruled that the Commonwealth's Grade AA standards violate the NCIMS's Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. NCIMS made clear its intention to designate the Commonwealth as a state that is not in compliance with the NCIMS Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance if the Commonwealth does not promptly delete its Grade AA standards.

   Specifically, Part II, Section 4 of NCIMS's Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance states:

. . . The use of super grade designations shall not be permitted. Grade designations such as ''Grade AA Pasteurized'' . . . give the consumer the impression that such a grade is significantly safer than Grade A. Such an implication is false, because the Ordinance requirements for Grade A pasteurized, ultrapasteurized or aseptically processed milk when properly enforced, will insure that this grade of milk will be as safe as milk can practicably be made.

   Grade AA milk represents less than 5% of the Commonwealth's dairy output. The Department reports that there are five smaller dairies that process Grade AA milk (two in the Harrisburg area and three in the Pittsburgh area). In contrast, Grade A milk represents over 90% of the Commonwealth's dairy output. The Commonwealth is a chief exporter of dairy products, and the majority of the Commonwealth's dairy production is in compliance with NCIMS standards to facilitate this export industry.

   If the NCIMS designates the Commonwealth as a state that is not in compliance with the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, the immediate effect would be to allow member states to embargo Pennsylvania-processed milk or impose sanitation, testing or compositional requirements that would impede the interstate sale of Pennsylvania produced milk and milk products. As an example, the Department indicates that the state regulatory agency overseeing Maryland's dairy industry has indicated that it would require Pennsylvania dairy processors to be inspected by Maryland inspection personnel as a prerequisite to the importation of Pennsylvania-processed milk into Maryland.

   The Department acknowledges that the deletion of Grade AA standards may impose some costs upon the Pennsylvania-based dairy processors that currently process milk meeting Grade AA requirements. Although the dairy processors would experience a decrease in testing costs, these processors might suffer some short-term financial loss of customers familiar with the Grade AA designations. It is not known whether these losses would be entirely offset by decreased testing costs.

   Failing to delete the Grade AA standards would subject Pennsylvania-produced milk and milk products to embargoes or additional testing requirements of other NCIMS member states. The Department notes that the adverse fiscal impact on the Commonwealth's dairy industry would be immediate and dramatic, and would outweigh any adverse fiscal impact imposed by the promulgation of this regulation upon Grade AA dairy processors.

   The regulatory amendment is necessary to keep Pennsylvania milk and milk products competitive in interstate commerce, and to prevent the imposition of embargoes or burdensome inspection or certification requirements upon Pennsylvania-processed milk and milk products by other states.

   Representative Raymond Bunt, Jr., Chairperson, of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, submitted a letter dated September 13, 1996, indicating that the Committee members ''recognize the fact that because of the substantial negative implications for the entire milk industry of the NCIMS ruling that Pennsylvania's Grade AA standards violate the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, the Department has very little choice but to proceed with this proposal.''

   The final-form regulation contains no changes from the proposed regulation. We did not file any comments on the proposed regulation. Furthermore, we did not receive any negative recommendations on the final-form regulation from either the House or Senate Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees.

Therefore:

   The Commission will notify the Legislative Reference Bureau that Regulation No. 2-108 from the Department of Agriculture, as submitted to the Commission on October 22, 1996, was deemed approved under section 5(b.3) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P. S. § 745.5(b.3)) on November 13, 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
November 21, 1996

State Board of Chiropractic--Examination Fees; Doc. No. 16A-437

Order

   On October 28, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this regulation from the State Board of Chiropractic (Board). This rulemaking would amend 49 Pa. Code § 5.6. The authority for this rulemaking is section 812.1 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 279.3a) and section 1101(a) of the Chiropractic Practice Act (63 P. S. § 625.1101(a)). Notice of proposed rulemaking was omitted for this regulation; it will become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

   This regulation increases the fee for the radiologic procedures examination from $55 to $75. The fee will become effective for examinations given after July 1, 1997. The first examinations after that date are scheduled for November 1997. The Board contracts with the American Chiropractic Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ACRRT) to prepare and administer this examination.

   The fee increase is necessary due to an increase in the contract costs. This past May, approximately 115 candidates took the examination in Pennsylvania according to the Board. To obtain certification to perform radiologic procedures under the direct supervision of a chiropractor who is on the premises, candidates must pass the ACRRT certifying examination. This regulation will impose an additional cost of $20 on future applicants for certification. The Board claims that there is no additional cost for the Commonwealth or local governments.

   The House Professional Licensure Committee and the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee approved this final-form regulation on November 13, 1996.

   We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. Section 812.1(b) of The Administrative Code of 1929 requires that the ''applicants' fees cover the entire cost of the examination.'' This regulation is necessary to meet this statutory requirement. The Board asserts that all persons affected by this regulation have been or will be given actual notice of its intention to increase the fee before final rulemaking under section 204(2) of the Commonwealth Documents Law (45 P. S. § 1204(2)). We greatly appreciate the timeliness of the rulemaking adopting this fee increase. By implementing this regulation now, the Board is providing affected parties with practically a full year's notice of the fee increase. We commend the Board for this effort and encourage all the licensure boards and the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs to implement future fee increases in a similar fashion to provide ample notice to all affected individuals and organizations.

Therefore, It Is Ordered That:

   1.  Regulation No. 16A-437 from the State Board of Chiropractic, as submitted to the Commission on October 28, 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
November 21, 1996

Insurance Department--No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance; Doc. No. 11-136

Order

   On November 4, 1996, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (Commission) received this regulation from the Insurance Department (Department). This rulemaking would amend 31 Pa. Code by deleting Chapter 66. The authority for this regulation is contained in sections 206, 506 and 1501 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. §§ 66, 186 and 411) and 75 Pa.C.S. Chapter 17 and § 6103. Notice of proposed rulemaking was omitted for this regulation; it will become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

   This proposal deletes Chapter 66 from Title 31. Chapter 66 was promulgated under the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1974 (Act 176). Chapter 66 is obsolete because Act 11 of 1984, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Responsibility Law (MVIRL), became effective October 1, 1984. The Department promulgated regulations to implement the MVIRL as Chapter 67 of Title 31.

   The Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania (IFP) commented that the assigned claims plan provided for in section 66.131, Assigned Claims Plan, and section 66.111(b) pertaining to application of motorcycle security, is still in existence and continues to have responsibilities.

   We agree with the IFP's position that notice of obligations of the assigned claims plan established in Chapter 66 must be retained. Section 9 of the act of February 12, 1984 (P. L. 53, No. 12) states:

Savings provision--Notwithstanding the repeal of the act of July 19, 1974 (P. L. 489, No. 176), known as the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, the requirement to fund the payment of assigned claims under section 108 of that act remains unaffected.

   On November 15, 1996, the Department submitted an amendment to its preamble and annex which inserts an historical note at sections 66.111 and 66.131 to state that requirement to fund the payment of assigned claims under section 108 of Act 176 remains unaffected.

   We have reviewed this regulation and find it to be in the public interest. Obsolete provisions in Chapter 66 are replaced by Chapter 67 which contains requirements of the MVIRL. The repeal of provisions in Chapter 66 which are no longer applicable will remove out-of-date requirements, thereby facilitating ease of use and avoiding unnecessary confusion because only current requirements for motor vehicle insurance will be retained.

Therefore, It Is Ordered That:

   1.  Regulation No. 11-136 from the Insurance Department, as submitted to the Commission on November 4, 1996, and amended on November 15, 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. 96-2069. Filed for public inspection December 6, 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.