Minnesota:
•
Common core state standards initiative. Minnesota is one of 48 states that have agreed to adopt a common core of state standards for various subject areas (except math).
•
Core subject areas. Minnesota defines core academic subjects as language arts; mathematics; science; social studies, including history, geography, economics, and government and citizenship; health and physical education; and the arts.
•
Charter school teacher requirements in core subject areas. Minnesota requires the licensure/certification of teachers in charter schools to be identical to those of all other public school teachers.
•
Additional subject area licenses based on taking a test. Minnesota allows teachers in only the science subjects to get another science license based on taking a state approved test.
•
License based on experience or equivalency. Minnesota has an active portfolio review process. Applicants must pay a $500 fee. Also, applicants must have taught in the area of discipline and demonstrate competency standards.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Chapter
PI 34
contains the requirements an individual must meet to be licensed as an educator in Wisconsin. It replaced Chapters
PI 3
(containing the requirements an individual must meet to be licensed) in 2004 and PI 4 (containing the procedures and standards for approval of professional education programs leading to licensure) in 2000. Chapter
PI 34
advanced licensure and educator preparation programs to be standards-based and competency-based rather than credit-based.
Since the passage of Chapter
PI 34
ten years ago, changes in teaching, learning, and instructional delivery require further modification to Wisconsin's licensure and educator preparation criteria. Also, modifications need to be made to clarify certain requirements. There is an increasing need for flexibility in licensure to allow rural schools to offer a full range of education offerings to students and allow teachers to more easily obtain licensure in other subjects while meeting the highly qualified teacher provisions under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
These proposed changes aim to provide more tools to schools and flexibility to educators that at the same time ensure educator quality.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact nor fiscal impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
Chapter
PI 34
contains the requirements an individual must meet to be licensed as an educator in Wisconsin. The proposed changes aim to provide more tools to schools and flexibility to educators that at the same time ensure educator quality.
State fiscal effect
The rule provisions that are likely to have a state fiscal effect include:
•
Validating discrete tests in each of the areas of language arts (English literature and composition, journalism, and speech), mathematics (or computer science), science (physical science, chemistry, physics, earth and space, environmental, and biology), and social studies (geography, history, political science, economics, psychology, and sociology). Currently, an individual takes a broadfield test in language arts, science or social studies to receive a specific license within that subject. The costs related to examination validation are indeterminate but will likely be absorbed by the agency. It is assumed that the Educational Testing Service will develop the discrete examinations at no cost to the department but may charge a fee to persons taking the test.
•
Developing a process that verifies content competencies for charter school instructional staff teaching in core academic subjects and an equivalency process for individuals to obtain or add additional licenses. The department may solicit bids from higher education institutions and professional associations to plan and provide an appropriate evaluation process to establish the content competencies and equivalency requirements. If an appropriate evaluation process cannot be contracted, the department will have to develop such a process. The department will incur the costs of developing, delivering and administering the evaluation process. These costs are indeterminate. If the department is not able to absorb these costs, it may charge applicants an appropriate fee to cover the costs of the process.
It is unknown whether this rule will have a fiscal effect on the University of Wisconsin (UW) system. A copy of the proposed rules has been submitted to the UW system with a request for a fiscal note.
Local government fiscal effect
By making it easier for teachers to receive additional licenses, the proposed rules may provide flexibility for school districts in making teacher assignments utilizing current staff. Any cost savings associated with such flexibility are indeterminate.
Agency Contact Person
Deborah Mahaffey
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Academic Excellence
Phone: (608) 266-3361
Notice of Hearing
Regulation and Licensing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Regulation and Licensing in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
,
51.30
,
146.82
,
227.11 (2)
and
440.04
, Stats., the Department of Regulation and Licensing will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to revise Chapter
RL 7
, relating to the Impaired Professionals Procedure.
Hearing Information
Date:
August 6, 2010
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 121A
Madison, WI
Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935. Written comments must be received by
August 9, 2010
, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Proposed Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at
pamela.haack@wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department of Regulation and Licensing is authorized under s.
440.03 (1)
, Stats., to promulgate rules defining uniform procedures to be used by the department and the attached boards, examining boards and affiliated credentialing boards.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
These proposed rules modernize and clarify the language of ch.
RL 7
. Under the current rules, the Impaired Professionals Procedure is an alternative to the disciplinary process. Under the proposed rules, the renamed Professional Assistance Procedure may also be used in conjunction with the disciplinary process.
Comparison with federal regulation
s
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
Each profession is managed independently of other professions. See also section 1285.235 of the Illinois Rules, Mandatory Reporting of Impaired Professionals by Health Care Institutions.
Iowa:
Iowa administrative code s.
653.14
.
http://php.iowa.gov/
about_iphp.html
. Section 653-14.5 (272C) defines who is deemed ineligible to participate in the program.
Michigan:
Section 333, Public Health Code. The Health Professional Recovery Program (HPRP) is administered by a private contractor under the direction of the HPRP and Bureau of Health Professions in the Michigan Department of Community Health. It is funded by participants and insurers. Several professions are included.
Minnesota:
MN Statutes s.
214.31
-214-37. Includes the following professions: chiropractors, dentists, marriage and family therapists, nurses, pharmacists, podiatrists, social workers, veterinarians.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department of Regulation and Licensing created a Task Force consisting of various stakeholder organizations, including the Boards of Pharmacy, Nursing and Medicine, trade associations representing hospitals, doctors, nurses and pharmacists, the Wisconsin Association of Justice Representatives and experts in the treatment of alcohol and drug dependency. The Task Force met six times in 2009 to discuss improvements to the existing procedure. A committee of the Task Force then convened in 2009-2010 to draft the rule changes with the department. All aspects of the procedure were explored in the Task Force meeting, including its effectiveness, requirements for entry, confidentiality, length of participation, terminology, practice restrictions, therapist involvement, disciplinary action and oversight of treatment providers and facilities by department staff and board members. Reports on procedures in other states were presented to the Task Force, in addition to information relating to laboratory facilities and treatment resources.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
The department does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact on small businesses. The changes are revisions to a program that is in operation and is funded by participants and license holders.
Section
227.137
, Stats., requires an "agency" to prepare an economic impact report before submitting the proposed rule-making order to the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The Department of Regulation and Licensing is not included as an "agency" in this section.
Small Business Impact
After review by the department's Small Business Review Advisory Committee, it was determined that these proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
hector.colon@drl.state.wi.us
, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule change will have no fiscal impact on the state of Wisconsin or on local units of government.
Anticipated costs incurred by the private sector
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Paralegal
Department of Regulation and Licensing
1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 116
P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708
Phone: 608-266-0495
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s.
84.01 (35) (c)
, Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing to consider the creation of Chapter
Trans 75
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to bikeways and sidewalks in highway projects.
Hearing Information
Date:
August 4, 2010
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Location:
Hill Farms State Transportation Bldg.
Room 144B
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison, WI
This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call Thomas Huber at (608) 267-7757 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in alternative format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability to accommodate your needs.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the rule may be obtained upon request from Thomas Huber, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, Room 901, P. O. Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707-7913. You may also contact Mr. Huber by phone at (608) 267-7757 or via e-mail: thomas.huber @wisconsin.gov to obtain copies of the proposed rule. Copies will also be available at the hearing.
Submittal of Written Comments
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Thomas Huber, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, Room 901, P. O. Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707-7913. You may also contact Mr. Huber by phone at (608) 267-7757.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
created s.
84.01(35)
, Stats., which requires the Department of Transportation to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included in all new highway construction and reconstruction projects funded in whole or in part from certain state funds or federal funds.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
created s.
84.01(35)
, Stats., which requires the Department of Transportation to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included in all new highway construction and reconstruction projects funded in whole or in part from certain state funds or federal funds, and sets forth five circumstances under which such facilities are not required. With minor exceptions, this law mirrors the "Complete Streets" policy recommended by the National Complete Streets Coalition, and supported by the Federal Highway Administration as a `livability Initiative.' The Act requires the Department to promulgate rules detailing those circumstances. This proposed rule details those circumstances. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities may be omitted from qualifying projects only if:
1.
Bicyclists or pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the highway that is the subject of the project. Highway authorities have specific statutory authority to limit highway access by bicycles and pedestrians, and this proposed rule enumerates those authorities.
2.
The cost of establishing bikeways or pedestrian ways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use of the bikeways or pedestrian ways. Under statutes, costs are excessively disproportionate if the cost of the bicycle or pedestrian facility exceeds 20 percent of the total project cost. This proposed rule uses the cost estimates for the construction of the entire project, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but excludes design costs and real estate costs, which are difficult to determine at the point that bicycle facilities or sidewalks are being considered. It compares the cost of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities and allows a highway authority to omit either or both if the costs are 20% or more. In some cases, the cost of providing either a bicycle or pedestrian facility might be completed for less than 20% of total project costs, so this proposed rule considers these facilities separately, to require spending up to 20% of total project costs on bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or both. The proposed rule prioritizes sidewalks, but allows the highway authority to choose whichever facility it determines provides the best value. The rule also considers the bicycle or pedestrian facility cost to be only the marginal cost (the costs not otherwise required for the roadway project) of adding or expanding any bicycle or pedestrian facility. Whenever additional real estate must be purchased, the rule considers which facility (travel lane, bikeway or sidewalk) is the primary demand for more real estate and apportions those real estate costs accordingly. Bikeways and sidewalks typically lie at the outermost edge of a highway and are most likely to lie on any newly-acquired real estate, but real estate costs are not properly attributable to those facilities if existing highway right-of-way is sufficient for them and where, for example, the demand for an additional travel lane is `crowding out' the sidewalk or bikeway.
3.
Establishing bikeways or pedestrian ways would have excessive negative impacts in a constrained environment. The proposed rule defines a constrained environment to be any location in which the addition of standard-width bicycle and pedestrian facilities would require the destruction of any building or other structure, improvement or landscaping adjacent to the highway, where such destruction would dramatically reduce the aesthetic value or functionality of the remaining area, or where the environmental documentation process shows would result in an unreasonable loss of natural resources, or sites of historical or archeological significance. The proposed rule specifies minimum widths of the bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and allows them to be narrowed, within limits, to fit within the area available for them.
Where real estate is acquired for a new or widened travel lane in a constrained environment, the `constraint' might be eliminated. In such cases, the highway authority shall consider whether the area remains a constrained environment after real estate is acquired.
4.
There is an absence of need for the bikeways or pedestrian ways, as indicated by sparsity of population, traffic volume, or other factors. The proposed rule distinguishes between development densities and land uses and allows the omission of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in areas that typically have little bicycle or pedestrian use and where future growth is not expected. The proposed rule does not allow omission of these facilities in any `urban area' or `semi-urban district' under this exception, regardless of existing demand for those facilities.
5.
The community where pedestrian ways are to be located refuses to accept an agreement to maintain them. This exception applies only where the local government lacks snow and ice removal equipment required to maintain the facilities and where these types of facilities do not exist and are not required. The proposed rule specifies that pedestrian facilities cannot be omitted from any national highway system project due to the absence of any maintenance agreement.
Finally, the proposed rule requires documented justification for omitting these facilities due to excessive costs, and requires the Department to approve that justification and omission, as a condition of receiving state and federal funds for the underlying highway project. For bikeways or sidewalks omitted for reasons other than excessive costs, the rule allows the department to request written justification for the omission and, if requested, prohibits the department from funding the highway project unless the department approves the omission and justification. The proposed rule also requires local highway authorities to agree, in writing, to maintain any sidewalks included in all new highway construction and reconstruction projects subject to this proposed rule, as a condition of eligibility for federal funds for that project.
Comparison with federal regulations
Federal regulations require the Department to give full consideration to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of Federal-aid highway projects, and during the construction of such projects. The same regulations make qualifying bicycle and pedestrian facilities eligible for federal highway funds.
23 USC 217
(g).
On February 28, 2000, the Federal Highway Administration issued "A U.S. DOT Design Policy: Integrating Bicycling and Walking Into Transportation Infrastructure" which sets forth a policy for the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in federally-funded transportation projects, as required by TEA-21 and codified at
23 USC 217
. On March 15, 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced a new policy "to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects" and encouraging states, local governments, and others to go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking networks. The policy finds its authority in numerous congressional laws and federal regulations, including federal highway planning requirements and provisions for non-motorized highway users, prohibitions against `route severance' in which highway projects leave unconnected remnant facilities, and pedestrian accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Federal Highway Administration has issued various policy guidance memoranda to implement these policies.
The recently enacted Wisconsin law, s.
84.01 (35)
, Stats., appears consistent with the federal guidelines, except that state law includes two exceptions not expressly authorized under federal policy. First, the state exception for sidewalks where the local governmental unit refuses to accept responsibility for maintenance is not authorized by federal law and cannot be used on any highway that is part of the national highway system. Omitting sidewalks from these projects for this reason may cause the federal government to decline federal funds for the project. Accordingly, this proposed rule makes this exception inapplicable on any project on the national highway system. Next, the state exception for excessive negative impacts in a constrained environment is not expressly authorized, but may be permissible under federal policy if these considerations are properly addressed in the environmental review process for the overall project.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
None of the states appear to have promulgated "Complete Streets" rules, though all states have some laws and regulations relating to bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along highways.
Michigan:
Michigan has adopted no administrative rules implementing the federal "Complete Streets" regulations and policy. Various municipalities within Michigan have adopted policies implementing "Complete Streets," including Ann Arbor.
Minnesota:
Minnesota statute 160.262 requires the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
adopt model standards for the establishment of recreational vehicle lanes on and along proposed and existing public highways. The law requires the model standards to include the following: (a) criteria for desirability of a lane in any given location, (b) provision for maintenance of the lanes, and (c) the placement of the lanes in relation to roads. The model standards govern state trunk highways, but could be applied to local roads, or modified to fit local circumstances, if local highway authorities so choose.
Minnesota has rules establishing "Criteria For Desirability Of Lanes" for use by bicycles and pedestrians. The rules, at ch. 8810.6300 Minn. Admin. Code, provide the circumstances under which the Department will consider adding lanes as part of a project, but do not seem to require those facilities. The rules list 12 factors to consider that could affect a decision to include bicycle or pedestrian lanes.
Illinois:
Illinois has enacted at 605 ILCS 30 a
statute called "The Bikeway Act" administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation.
The Bikeway Act authorizes the construction and designation of bikeways, but does not appear to require the inclusion of bikeways in highway projects.
The Illinois Department of Transportation has adopted a policy of Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations dated May 1, 2002, available at:
http://dot.state.il.us/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/chap17.pdf
.
The policy follows the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials'
(
"
AASHTO") publication "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities" as the basis for design guidance. Further guidance is provided in the FHWA publication "Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles." In general, the policy seems to require only that highway officials "Consider accommodating bicycles and pedestrians on all projects," except controlled access highways and pavement resurfacing projects that not widen the roadway. The policy establishes five warrants that, if present, require the inclusion of bicycle facilities in a highway project. The policy establishes six warrants that, if present, will make pedestrian accommodations "considered appropriate if they are not already available." Illinois' Department of Natural Resources also administers the "Illinois Bicycle Path Grant Program"
under Title 17, Section 3040, Ill. Adm. Code.
The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to eligible local units of government to assist them in the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of public
off-road
, non-motorized bicycle paths and directly-related facilities in Illinois.
Iowa:
On February 22, 2010, an Iowa legislator introduced House File 2506, which would enact "Complete Streets" legislation. The bill was referred to committee with no further action taken. The Iowa Administrative Code, s. 761—150.4(306), requires the replacement of existing routes moved as result of a highway project on a `primary road,' and requires the Iowa Department of Transportation to "consider the impacts to pedestrian accommodation at all stages of the project development process and encourage pedestrian accommodation efforts when pedestrian accommodation is impacted by highway construction." The administrative code makes bicycle and pedestrian facilities eligible for highway funding whenever included as part of a highway project, but does not otherwise appear to require they be included.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This rule is proposed as required by s.
84.01 (35) (c)
, Stats. The rule is consistent with the Department's design criteria for bicycle and pedestrian facilities as published in the "Facilities Development Manual."
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
This proposed rule neither requires nor prohibits any action on the part of any small business, and the Department foresees no direct or indirect impact on any small business as result of this proposed rule. There may be indirect cost increases on small businesses that own or lease property fronting a highway, as a result of the statute that requires the addition of sidewalks on certain highway projects. This rule will not impose any indirect costs on any small business, as it provides only exceptions under which sidewalks and bikeways may be omitted from certain highway projects.
Small Business Impact
This proposed rule has no effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on the liabilities or revenues of any county, city, village, town, school district, vocational, technical and adult education district, sewerage district, or federally-recognized tribes or bands. This proposed rule provides the exceptions under which sidewalks and bikeways may be omitted from certain highway projects. Any highway authority wishing to omit a sidewalk or bikeway from a highway project may incur some expenses in determining whether that facility is eligible for omission under this rule and, in some cases, to document eligibility or to apply for Department approval of that omission. Omitting a sidewalk or bikeway required by statute, following the procedures created by this rule, may require, for example, calculating the cost of adding a sidewalk or bikeway to determine whether it is excessively costly as compared with total estimated project costs. In effect, the only costs associated with the rule are those incurred in order to determine whether the highway authority can avoid the greater costs of adding sidewalks or bikeways required under statute. Local governmental units can avoid any costs associated with this rule by including sidewalks and bikeways in all qualifying highway projects, as required by statute.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities as result of this proposed rule. Any costs borne by state or private sector revenues are the product of a statute that requires the addition of sidewalks and bikeways in certain highway projects. That statute may require the addition of sidewalks abutting business property, which may result in the local governmental unit imposing special assessments for sidewalks.
Agency Contact Person
Thomas Huber, Dept. of Transportation
Bureau of Planning and Economic Development
Room 901, P. O. Box 7913
Madison, WI 53707-7913
Phone: (608) 267-7757
