CR_13-065 Revises sections Phar 18.02, 18.03, and 18.06 , relating to the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and the exclusion of veterinarians from reporting.

Effect on Small Business

The existing ch. ATCP 110 regulates businesses that provide home improvement services. Many of these businesses are "small businesses." They include general contractors, landscapers, plumbers, roofers, window installers, cabinet makers, electricians, and many more. Some of the changes to ch. ATCP 110 proposed in this rule will have an effect on some of these businesses. DATCP anticipates that the majority of these effects will be beneficial. The rule streamlines existing regulations to make them easier for home improvement providers to comply. But the rule does not eliminate these regulations, thereby preserving important protections for consumers.

This rule may benefit home improvement contractors in the following ways:

•   General contractors working on significant reconstruction projects would no longer be regulated under this proposed rule. Currently, ch. ATCP 110 does not regulate new home construction but it does regulate home improvement projects. Under this proposal, major reconstructions — those projects where the price of the contract is greater than the assessed property value — would be treated like new home construction.

•   For all home improvement contractors, this rule provides some additional flexibility (as long as certain conditions are met). Including:

•   Building permits need only be obtained before work on that portion of the project concerning the building permit. Otherwise, all required building permits must be obtained before any work is completed.

•   Sellers can provide written manufacturers' warranties at the conclusion of the work. Otherwise, written manufacturers' warranties must be provided at the time the product is installed.

•   Under very limited circumstances, sellers can deviate from the written contract based on verbal agreements between the buyer and the seller.

•   The seller cannot be held responsible for delays in contract performance if the seller can demonstrate that delay was caused by actions or inactions of the buyer.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures

Generally, reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures are the same as the current rule. However, this proposed rule does allow home improvement contractors some choices. For example under the current rule, any changes to the home improvement contract must be in writing before any work can proceed under the contract. Under the proposed rule, work can proceed, but only if the seller agrees to maintain certain documentation.

Professional skills required

This rule does not represent any requirements for professional skills.

Accommodation for small business

Many of the businesses affected by this rule are "small businesses." This rule does not make special exceptions for small businesses because the subject matter does not lend itself to treating different sized home improvement contractors differently.

Conclusion

This rule will generally benefit affected businesses, including "small businesses." Negative effects, if any, will be few and limited. This rule will not have a significant adverse effect on "small business," and is not subject to the delayed "small business" effective date provided in s. 227.22 (2) (e) , Stats.

Environmental Impact

This rule does not have an environmental impact.

Contact Information

Kevin LeRoy

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone [phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail] .

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. ATCP 110 and 111, Home Improvement Practices and Basement Waterproofing
Subject
Home improvement practices and basement waterproofing
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR ⍽ FED X PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			20.115 (1) (a) and (jb)
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		X 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
ATCP 110, Home Improvement Practices, helps ensure fair transactions between home improvement contractors and their customers. This rule regulates many different types of home improvement, remodeling, and repair projects. This rule has been in existence since 1940 and has been modified a number of times, most recently in 2001. The changes proposed in this rule, generally, represent updates and revisions to keep the rule consistent with current industry practices. It does not represent a major shift in policy from the existing rules.
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)
Local Governments This rule will not impact local governments. Home Improvement Contractors – General This proposed rule is updated to reflect current practices in the home improvement industry. The rule will reduce the cost of compliance on home improvement contractors by reducing required paperwork, streamlining processes, and eliminating unnecessary, burdensome requirements. In general, the rule benefits both contractors and consumers by providing additional flexibility, while retaining prohibitions against unfair business practices. Contractors that take advantage of the proposed rule's added flexibility may incur minimal cost as they revise their standard contracts to conform to the new rule. Home Improvement Contractors that Specialize in Major Reconstruction or Rebuilding of Existing Structures The current rule (generally) regulates any home improvement work that is done on an existing residential building (see ATCP 110.01 (2), the definition of "home improvement," for a more precise description). The current rule does not, however, regulate new home construction. Under this proposed rule, very large projects, those where the value of the project is greater than the assessed value of the property, would be outside the scope of the rule. This allows contractors who do this type of work to interact with their customers as they would when building a new home.
Basement Waterproofers Ch. ATCP 111 regulates business practices by basement waterproofers. This proposed rule streamlines the code by moving these provisions into a section of ATCP 110. However, it does not make any substantive changes to the requirements. Utility Rate Payers This rule does not impact utility rate payers. General Public Chs. ATCP 110 and 111 impact buyers of home improvement services by placing certain requirements and restrictions on home improvement contractors. This proposed rule does not represent a measurable change from this impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Benefits Home improvement contractors The proposed rule is intended to reduce the cost of compliance to contractors, which will in turn lead to increased efficiency and profitability. The rule also retains important prohibitions against unfair trade practices that harm honest businesses and consumers. This rule should benefit home improvement contractors. General Public The rule provides additional flexibility in transactions between contractors and consumers. Consumers may benefit when contractors' gains in efficiency and flexibility translate into lower costs and increased competition. Alternatives DATCP could continue regulating the home improvement industry under existing rules. However, this proposed rule updates and refines existing ATCP 110, Home Improvement Practices. The intent of this rulemaking is to modernize and streamline the requirements, but without sacrificing important consumer protections.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Implementing the rule will benefit business, consumers, and the general public. The rule modifications will provide flexibility for businesses while retaining protection for consumers.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The federal government does not, in general, regulate home improvement practices.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Most states, including all of Wisconsin's neighbors have home improvement practices laws. Many of the provisions in ATCP 110 are common in these other states as well. Illinois regulates home improvement practices through its Home Repair and Remodeling Act and its Home Repair Fraud Act. These provisions are generally similar to Wisconsin's Home Improvement Practices rule. Iowa grants consumers a private right of action, which enables consumers to sue businesses that engage in deceptive or unfair practices, misrepresentation, or failure to disclose material facts. This law covers home improvement practices, among other areas. Contractors who do home improvement work in Minnesota and Michigan are required to obtain a license from the state (there are some exceptions). In Minnesota, licensed contractors are required to pay into the Minnesota Contractor's Recovery Fund. This fund compensates people who have suffered losses due to a licensed contractor's fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest practices, misuse of funds, or failure to do the work the contractor was hired to do.

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services — Pharmacy Examining Board

CR 13-065

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Pharmacy Examining Board in ss. 450.19 (2) and 961.31 , Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss. 15.08 (5) (b) and 227.11 (2) (a) Wis. Stats., the Pharmacy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal ss. Phar 18.02 (22) , 18.06 (4) to (6) and (9) ; renumber s. Phar 18.06 (8) to (5) ; renumber and amend s. Phar 18.06 (7) to (4) ; amend ss. Phar 18.02 (7) , (16) , and (17) , 18.03 (intro.) , 18.04 (1) (b) and (e) , and (3) (b) , (d) , (i) , and (k) , 18.06 (1) to (3) (intro.) ; create s. Phar 18.02 (13e) ; and repeal and recreate s. Phar 18.02 (3) , relating to the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) and the exclusion of veterinarians from reporting.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Time:   9:00 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue (Enter at 55 No.
  Dickenson Street)
  Room 121
  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 53708-8935. 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 Jean MacCubbin, Program Manager, 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] ; or via telecommunications relay services at 711. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on September 11, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Jean MacCubbin, Program Manager, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, by email at [e-mail] or on our website at http://dsps.wi.gov/ Default.aspx?Page=44e541e8-abdd-49da-8fde-046713617e9e .

Analysis prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 450.19 (2) , Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) , 227.11 (2) (a) , and 961.31 , Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Section 450.19 (2) , Stats., directs the Board to establish rules to govern the PDMP. Section 961.31 , Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules relating to the dispensing of controlled substances. Finally, ss. 15.08 (5) (b) and 227.11 (2) (a) , Stats., confers to the Board the powers to promulgate rules for the guidance of the profession and to interpret the provisions of statutes it enforces.

Related statute or rule

Chapter 450 , Stats., and chs. Phar 1 to 17 , Wis. Admin. Code.

Plain language analysis

Chapter Phar 18 , Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP), created a prescription drug monitoring program to collect and maintain information relating to the prescribing and dispensing of prescription drugs, particularly controlled substances. Chapter Phar 18 became effective January 1, 2013, in response to s. 961.31 , Stats., which provided the board authority to promulgate rules. As promulgated ch. Phar 18 contradicts the statutory directive to create the PDMP in s. 450.19 , Stats., as modified by 2013 Act 3 .

Sections 1 to 4 either create, amend, or repeal definitions relating to changes consistent with 2013 Act 3 and the PDMP. Section 5 corrects statutory citations changed from the enactment of 2013 Act 3 . Section 6 updates data requirements now that veterinarians are no longer required to report to the PDMP. Section 7 and 8 remove code text specific to veterinarian dispensers. Section 9 renumbers subsections after deleting text in Sections 7 and 8.

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

There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

An Internet-based search for similar prescription drug monitoring programs revealed that the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota allow veterinarians to access their on-line reporting website or specifically require veterinarians to report dispensing through their statues or codes. The search did not reveal that Iowa codes or statutes require or exempt veterinarians from their prescription drug monitoring program.

No factual data or analytical methodologies were used to draft the rules; the main purpose of the rule revisions is to conform to the Statutes after the enactment of 2013 Act 3 .

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

None undertaken to draft the rules; the main purpose of the rule revisions is to conform to the Statutes after the enactment of 2013 Act 3 .

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

This rule change will not have an effect on small business.

Environmental Assessment/Statement

N/A.

Agency Contact

Jean MacCubbin, Program Manager

Department of Safety and Professional Services

Division of Policy Development

1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151

P.O. Box 8935

Madison, WI 53708-8935

Telephone: [phone]

Email: [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
Ch. Phar 18, prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP)
3. Subject
Revise the rule too be consistent with 2013 Act 3, removing veterinarians from the definition of "practitioners" and the requirement to collect and submit data to the PDMP.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   X PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			20.165 (1) (a)
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 rule as it currently reads is not consistent with 2013 Act 3, which removed veterinarians from the definition of "practitioners" no longer requiring them to collect and submit data to the PDMP.
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.
Veterinarians
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None identified.
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)
None known.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule will be consistent with 2013 Act 3, which removed veterinarians from the definition of "practitioners" no longer requiring them to collect and submit data to the PDMP. Doing nothing with result in a rule not reflecting state statues.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
None known.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
An Internet-based search for similar prescription drug monitoring programs revealed that the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota allow veterinarians to access their on-line reporting website or specifically require veterinarians to report dispensing through their statues or codes. The search did not reveal that Iowa codes or statutes require or exempt veterinarians from reporting to their prescription drug monitoring program.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Jean MacCubbin				608-266-0955

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