CR_12-051 Revise Chapter VE 1, relating to definitions of patient and prescription legend animal drugs.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois :

Illinois does not require a personal appearance.

Iowa :

Iowa does not require a personal appearance.

Michigan :

Michigan does not require a personal appearance.

Minnesota :

Minnesota does not require a personal appearance.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Psychology Examining Board conformed the rule to the statute. No additional factual data or analytical methodologies were used.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

This rule creates a change which matches the statutory languages. The rule has a positive effect on applicants and does not have an effect on small business.

This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

The proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

Please direct any questions to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail] v .

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. Psy 2.09 (4) is amended to read:

Psy 2.09 (4) APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD. The applicant shall may be required to appear before the board in person prior to licensure to allow the board to make such inquiry of them as to qualifications and other matters as it considers proper.

SECTION 2. Psy 2.12 (2) is repealed.

SECTION 3. Psy 2.12 (3) and (4) are renumbered to Psy 2.12 (2) and (3).

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Psy 2
Subject
Applicant Appearances
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED X PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget X Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This amendment will bring the rule in line with the statutes which has a discretionary provision regarding applicant appearances rather than the current rule which is mandatory. The rule also repeals the reciprocity provision because the Agreement of Reciprocity of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards requires a personal appearance before the Board.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There is no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit to rule will reduce the administrative burden of the resources of the Psychology Examining Board and the Department of Safety and Professional Services. It would also significantly reduce the time it takes an applicant to become licensed because they would no longer have to wait until a scheduled meeting. The repeal of the provision regarding the Agreement of Reciprocity of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards would have minimal impact due to there only being seven other signatory states and none are neighboring states. The alternative to rule change would be to continue requiring every applicant to appear before the Board prior to obtaining a license.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication would be streamlined application process.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
None of our neighboring states require a personal appearance before the Board prior to issuance of a license.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Veterinary Examining Board

CR 12-051

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Veterinary Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (1), Wis. Stats., and interpreting section 453.02 (4s), Wis. Stats., the Veterinary Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section VE 1.02 (8) ; and to amend section VE 1.02 (7) relating to the definitions of patient and prescription legend animal drugs.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Time:   9:00 a.m.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI

Appearances at the Hearing

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 the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov .

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submissions

Comments may be submitted to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov . Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 30, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 453.02 (4s) , Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (1) , Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

An examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the profession to which it pertains. The Board may promulgate rules establishing the scope of practice.

Related statute or rule

Section 453.02 (4s) , Wis. Stats.

Plain language analysis

Section 1 is amended in order for the definition of "patient" in the rule to match the definition in the statute.

Section 2 is repealed due to "Prescription legend animal drugs" no longer being referenced in the VE Code.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None.

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois :

Illinois Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004 defines patient as "an animal that is examined or treated by a veterinarian." 225 Ill. Comp. Stat § 115/3. The Rules do not have a separate definition.

Iowa :

Iowa statutes and administrative code do not define patient; only animal.

Michigan :

Michigan statutes and administrative code do not define patient; only animal.

Minnesota :

Minnesota statutes define patient" as an animal for which a veterinary prescription drug is used or intended to be used. Minn. Stat. § 156.16 .

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Veterinary Examining Board ensured the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data were used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

This rule updates a definition to match the statutory definition and repeals a definition no longer used, therefore there is no economic impact. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

There is no effect on small businesses.

These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) , Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail] , or by calling [phone].

Agency Contact Person

Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail] .

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. VE 1.02 (7) is amended to read:

(7) "Patient" means the an animal being that is examined or treated by a veterinarian .

SECTION 2. VE 1.02 (8) is repealed.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
VE 1.02
Subject
Definitions
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The rule will amend the definition of "patient" to match the definition in the statute and repeal the definition of "prescription legend animal drugs" due to no longer being used in the rule.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No economic or fiscal impact to business, organization or the economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit is creating consistency with rule and statute in defining "patient" in order to create clarity.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Illinois defines patient as "an animal that is examined or treated by a veterinarian". Iowa and Michigan do not define patient; only animal. Minnesota defines patient as "an animal for which a veterinary prescription drug is used or intended to be used".
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Veterinary Examining Board

CR 12-052

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Veterinary Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting section 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats., the Veterinary Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section VE 7.06 (22) (c) , (d) , (e) and (Note), section VE 9.05 (12) (c) , (d) , (e) and (Note), sections VE 10.02 (1) (a) 1. , VE 10.02 (2) (a) 1. , and VE 10.04 ; and amend sections VE 7.06 (22) and VE 9.05 (12) relating to continuing education and training in the use of pesticides by veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Time:   9:05 a.m.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI

Appearances at the Hearing

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 the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submissions

Comments may be submitted to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov . Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 30, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov .

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 453.03 (2) , Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (2) , Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

An examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the profession to which it pertains. The Veterinary Examining Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes.

Related statute or rule

Section 453.03 (2) , Wis. Stats.

Plain language analysis

The passage of 2009 Wisconsin Act 139 amended s. 453.03 (2) , Wis. Stats., to create an exception to the promulgation of rules requiring training and continuing education sufficient to assure the competency of veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians in the practice of veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians in the practice of veterinary medicine. Per the statutory amendment, the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes.

Currently s. VE 10.04 requires a certification on the renewal application that veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians have taken one credit of continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides during the two years prior to the renewal. Section 6 repeals this requirement.

Sections 1-5 amends or repeals portions of the Administrative Code to remove all references to s. VE 10.04 .

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None.

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois :

Illinois does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Iowa :

Iowa does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Michigan :

Michigan does not require any continuing education for veterinarians or veterinary technicians.

Minnesota :

Minnesota does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Veterinary Examining Board ensured the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data were used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

Per 2009 Act 139 , the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning pesticides and this rule will repeal the requirements currently in place. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

There is no effect on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail] .

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. VE 7.06 (22) is amended to read:

VE 7.06 (22) Falsely certifying to the board under s. VE 10.02 (6) or 10.04 (1) that the veterinarian:

SECTION 2. VE 7.06 (22) (c), (d), (e), and Note are repealed.

SECTION 3. VE 9.05 (12) is amended to read:

VE 9.05 (12) Falsely certifying to the board under s. VE 10.02 (6) or 10.04 (1) that the veterinary technician:

SECTION 4. VE 9.05 (12) (c), (d), (e) and Note are repealed.

SECTION 5. VE 10.02 (1) (a) 1.and 10.02 (2) (a) 1. are repealed.

SECTION 6. VE 10.04 is repealed

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
VE 7, 9, 10
Subject
Continuing education and training in the use of pesticides
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Per 2009 Act 139, the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes. This rule will repeal the requirements currently in place requiring continuing education in this area.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No economic or fiscal impact to business, organization or the economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit is the rule will be in line with the statutory authority regarding continuing education.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Our neighboring states do not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]