CR_13-017 Hearing to consider rule revising Chapter Opt 5, relating to lens prescription.

SECTION 14. Tax 9.47 (4) is amended to read:

Tax 9.47 (4) A clearly legible copy of all invoices evidencing a sale or exchange of cigarettes shall be retained by each of the parties to the transaction for a period of at least 2 5 years from the date of the invoice, in groups covering a period of one month each.

SECTION 15. Tax 9.51 (1) is amended to read:

Tax 9.51 (1) Cigarettes shipped into this state by manufacturers to their representatives, including advertising agencies and airlines, for the purpose of free samples shall be accompanied by a memo invoice stating brands and number of cigarettes. The memos shall be retained by the representative for the statutory period of 2 5 years.

SECTION 16. Tax 9.68 (2) (a) (Note) is created to read:

Tax 9.68 (2) (a) (Note) Form CTP-129 is available on the department's web site at www.revenue.wi.gov .

SECTION 17. Tax 9.68 (3) (b) (Note 1) is repealed.

SECTION 18. Tax 9.70 (3) (d) (Example 1) and (Example 2) are amended to read:

Tax 9.70 (3) (d) (Example 1) At a time when the cigarette tax rate is 3.85¢ 12.6¢ per stick, Person A sells cigarettes to Customer B. The amount of the invoice is $10,000 $20,000 , consisting of cigarette tax of $1,540 $5,040 , cost of cigarettes of $6,000 $12,000 and sundries of $2,460 $2,960 . Customer B defaults and discontinues operations, leaving a balance due to Person A of $2,100, which includes interest of $200 not included in the original invoice amount. The deductible tax is $292.60 $478.80 , computed as follows:

Tax per invoice     $1,540.00 $5,040.00

Invoice amount   $ 10,000.00 20,000.00

Unpaid invoice amount - -1,900.00

Paid invoice amount   $ 8,100.00 18,100.00

Portion constituting tax* x .154 .252

Tax paid       - $1,247.40 $4,561.20

Tax that may be deducted   $ 292.60 478.80

* $1,540 $5,040 tax ÷ $10,000 $20,000 invoice amount = .154 .252 .

(Example 2) At a time when the tobacco products tax rate is 25% 71% of the manufacturer's wholesale established list price, Distributor A sells tobacco products to Customer B. The amount of the invoice is $9,500 $11,800 , consisting of tobacco products tax of $1,250 $3,550 , cost of tobacco products of $5,000 and sundries of $3,250. Customer B defaults and discontinues operations, leaving a balance due to Distributor A of $3,000, which includes interest of $200 not included in the original invoice amount. The deductible tax is $365.60 $841 , computed as follows:

Tax per invoice     $1,250.00 $3,550

Invoice amount   $ 9,500.00 11,800

Unpaid invoice amount – - 2,800.00 2,800

Paid invoice amount   $ 6,700.00 9,000

Portion constituting tax* x .132 .301

Tax paid       - $884.40 $2,709

Tax that may be deducted   $ 292.60 841

* $1,250 $3,550 tax ÷ $9,500 $11,800 invoice amount = .132 .301 .

SECTION 19. Effective date. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.) , Stats

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapters Tax 4, 8, and 9 – Motor vehicle and general aviation fuel taxation; intoxicating liquors; and cigarette tax.
Subject
General provisions of excise taxation and enforcement.
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 does not create or revise policy, other than to reflect current law and department policy.
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)
As indicated in the attached fiscal estimate, the revisions in the proposed rule will have no impact on either state tax revenues or the department's administrative costs. No comments concerning the economic effect of the rule were submitted in response to the department's solicitation.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Clarifications and guidance provided by administrative rules may lower the compliance costs for businesses, local governmental units, and individuals. If the rule is not implemented, Chapters Tax 4, 8, and 9 will be incomplete in that they will not reflect current law or department policy.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
No long-range implications are anticipated.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
N/A

FISCAL ESTIMATE FORM				2012 Session
X ORIGINAL ⍽ UPDATED	LRB #
	INTRODUCTION #
⍽ CORRECTED ⍽ SUPPLEMENTAL	Admin rule #		Chapter Tax 4, Chapter Tax 8, and Chapter Tax 9
Subject Proposed order of the Department of Revenue relating to general provisions of excise taxation and enforcement.
Fiscal Effect

State:   X No State Fiscal Effect   Check columns below only if bill makes a direct appropriation or   affects a sum sufficient appropriation ⍽ Increase Existing Appropriation     ⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Appropriation     ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues ⍽ Create New Appropriation			Increase Costs - May be Possible to Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Yes ⍽ No ⍽ Decrease Costs
Local: X No Local Government Costs
1.   ⍽ Increase Costs	3   ⍽ Increase Revenues		5. Types of Local Governmental Units Affected:
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory	⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory		⍽ Towns ⍽ Villages ⍽ Cities
2.   ⍽ Decrease Costs	4.   Decrease Revenues		⍽ Counties ⍽ Others
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory	⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory		⍽ School Districts ⍽ WTCS Districts
Fund Sources Affected ⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S		Affected Ch. 20 Appropriations
Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate: The proposed rule order modifies several sections in Chapter Tax 4 (Motor vehicle and general aviation fuel taxation), Chapter Tax 8 (Intoxicating Liquors), and Chapter Tax 9 (Cigarette tax). It makes several changes to reflect current law and the technology now available to administer current law. The proposed rule updates department contact information and updates examples to utilize current tax rates. The revisions in the proposed rule will have no impact on either state tax revenues or the department's administrative costs.

Long-Range Fiscal Implications:
Agency/Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Revenue	Authorized Signature/Telephone No. Wisconsin Department of Revenue	Date
Jacek Cianciara	Paul Ziegler	Nov. 12, 2012
608 266-8133	608 266-5773

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services
Optometry Examining board

CR 13-017

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Optometry Examining Board in s. 15.08 (5) (b) , Wis. Stats., and interpreting s. 449.08 , Wis. Stats., the Optometry Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend Opt 5.02 (4) relating to lens prescription.

Hearing Dates and Locations

The hearing will be held:

Date:   Thursday, March 28, 2013
Time:   9:00 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121C
  Madison, Wisconsin

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 Policy Development, 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 Submission

Comments may be submitted 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, WI 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail] . Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on March 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at [e-mail] .

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 449.08 , Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Section 15.08 (5) (b) , Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Each examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains, and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or professional.

Related statute or rule

Chapter Opt 5 .

Plain language analysis:

Modification of the definition for lens prescription would provide clarity and create a consistency between lens prescriptions and contact lens prescriptions. Health care entities are increasingly utilizing electronic prescriptions and signatures as a way to improve patient safety, and control costs.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: In Illinois no ophthalmic lenses, prisms or contact lenses may be sold or delivered to an individual without a prescription signed by a licensed optometrist or a physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches. It does not specifically address electronic prescription.

Iowa: In Iowa a person shall not dispense or adapt an ophthalmic spectacle lens or lenses without first receiving authorization to do so by a written, electronic or facsimile prescription from a person licensed as an optometrist or physician.

Michigan: Michigan optometry statutes and rules do not have a definition of an optometrist prescription.

Minnesota: Minnesota requires prescriptions furnished to the patient to be signed by the examining optometrist. It does not specify whether the prescription may be electronic.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Optometry Examining Board reviewed their rules with the goal of reducing the burden on small business while continuing to ensure public safety. The Board recognized the efficiencies and accuracy which could be obtained with electronic lens prescriptions. The allowance of electronic lens prescriptions brings the rule in line with contact lens prescriptions.

This rule change was highlighted in the SBRRB's 2013 Wisconsin Regulatory Review Report. As noted in the report, thousands of patients will be able to enjoy the increased speed and accuracy of electronic prescriptions for eyeglasses.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis:

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 rule will not have an effect on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

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] .

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter Opt 5.02 (4).
3. Subject
Relating to lens prescription.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. 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 Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The current definition for lens prescription states a "written order" which could be interpreted to not allow for an electronic signature. A contact lens prescription does not have the requirement of "written order" and requires a signature. Modification of the current definition for lens prescription would provide clarity and create a consistency between lens prescriptions and contact lens prescriptions.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
This rule was posted for 14 days for economic impact comments and none were received.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None. This rule does not affect local governmental units.
12. 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)
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit to the proposed rule is bring the rules for lens prescriptions in line with contact lens prescriptions. Health care entities are increasingly utilizing electronic prescriptions and signatures as a way to improve patient safety, inefficiencies and control costs. With this change, thousands of patients will be able to enjoy the increased speed and accuracy of electronic prescriptions for eyeglasses. The alternative is to continue to have different requirements for a lens prescription and a contact lens prescription.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication is increased patient safety and efficiencies.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Iowa allows electronic prescriptions. Illinois and Minnesota laws do not specify whether a prescription may be electronic. Michigan does not appear to have a definition of an optometrist prescription.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sharon Henes				[phone]

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.