Both ferrous and nonferrous metallic mining activities must meet the requirements of federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 1342, and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 4209. These federal laws are administered by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). In addition, hazardous wastes are subject to federal hazardous waste laws under RCRA, Subtitle C, although mining wastes are generally exempt from federal hazardous waste laws under the Bevill Exclusion (42 U.S.C. s. 6921 (b) (3) (A)).
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis:
The department did complete the Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis form [DOA-2049 (RO3/2012)] as part of this rule analysis.
The Department does not believe these proposed rule changes will affect small businesses.
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
101 S. Webster St., Madison, WI 53703
Under phase 2 of the original state mercury rule, 31 EGUs are required to achieve 90 percent control of mercury by January 1, 2015. Currently, these EGUs are subject to a 40 percent control requirement under phase 1 of the state mercury rule. Phase 2 of the state mercury rule will also require four smaller EGUs not affected under phase 1 to begin operating best available control technology (BACT) by January 1, 2015.
The same coal-fired EGUs subject to the state mercury rule will also be subject to mercury emission limits under one of two recently promulgated federal rules: the MATS rule or the ICI Boiler rule. EGUs subject to the MATS rule must demonstrate compliance by April 16, 2015. The EGUs subject to the ICI Boiler rule must demonstrate compliance by January 31, 2016. However, individual EGUs may request a one-year extension to any federal rule regulating hazardous air pollutant emissions as allowed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
The Department has concluded that requiring compliance with phase 2 of the state mercury rule for a short period of time is not warranted for a number of reasons. First, state law directs that mercury emissions will be regulated in the long-term by any promulgated federal requirement. Second, the Department believes that meeting requirements of both the state and federal rules adds complexity, cost, and compliance burden for the affected EGUs. Lastly, with the federal rules becoming effective on April 16, 2015 and January 31, 2016, and the state rule no longer applicable after those dates, delaying the state mercury rule requirements will not result in higher levels of mercury emissions compared to implementing only the state rule.
Therefore, the Department is proposing to delay the compliance date for phase 2 of the state mercury rule from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016. The Department is proposing this date to accommodate individual EGUs subject to the MATS rule that may require a one-year extension. It is the Department's opinion that EGUs affected by the ICI Boiler rule will not request a one-year extension and therefore will not require the compliance date for phase 2 of the state mercury rule to be one year after the ICI Boiler rule's compliance date.
The Department evaluated mercury emission control levels and remaining emissions that are expected under full implementation of either the state mercury rule or the two federal rules. The Department determined that the current compliance date of the state mercury rule may result in undue compliance burden and cost even though mercury emissions, in the long-term, will be regulated under the current federal MATS and ICI Boiler rules. Therefore, the Department evaluated options to transition regulation of mercury emissions from under the state mercury rule to the federal rules in a manner consistent with the applicable statutes. The factual data and methodologies used to evaluate the state and federal mercury rule requirements are documented in the report presented to the Natural Resources Board on May 22, 2013, which can be accessed from the May 22, 2013, agenda on the Natural Resource Board's website.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis
The proposed rule will only affect electric utilities generating electricity and will not affect small businesses.
1. Fiscal effect on state and local government
The proposed rule will not result in additional cost to state and local government. The proposed rule is intended to avoid additional compliance costs for coal-fired electric generating units. Manitowoc Public Utility, the one local government entity that is affected by the rule change, has commented that the proposed rule will reduce compliance burden and avoid additional costs.
2. Fiscal effect on the private sectors
The proposed rule is intended to avoid additional compliance costs to coal-fired electric generating units, and therefore, the private sector will incur no additional cost that is related to this rule change. The non-government electric utility companies affected by the rule change include Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Power and Light, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, We Energies and Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy and Dairyland Power Cooperative provided comments supporting the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and avoid additional costs.
The objective of the proposed rule change is to aid transition of mercury emission regulation from under state rule to federal rule and therein reduce potential compliance costs and burden. As a result, there is no increase in the costs incurred by affected EGUs and electric rate payers. Likewise, there is no negative impact on the state's economy.
2. Summary of revised analysis
The Department received comments from three affected EGUs which supports the original conclusion provided in the EIA that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost. No other comments were received.
101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI 53703
E-mail:
thomas.karman@wisconsin.gov
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
⍽
Original
X
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Chapter NR 446 Subchapter III - Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Generating Units
|
3. Subject
|
Revision of the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
NA
|
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
X
Local Government Units
|
X
Specific Businesses/Sectors
X
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
|
Mercury emitted by coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the state will be regulated under recently promulgated federal rules beginning on April 16, 2016. According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats, these same EGUs will be exempt from the state mercury rule requirements under subch. II and III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, when mercury emissions are regulated under the federal rules. The Department is proposing to change the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016 to aid the transition of regulating mercury emissions from under the state rule to the federal rules.
|
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.
|
The state mercury rule affects EGUs operated by six electric utilities: Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU), Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, We Energies, and Xcel Energy. The Department solicited information from the affected utilities, local units of government, and individuals in finalizing the economic impact assessment. The Department received comments from three of the affected utilities, Dairyland Power Cooperative, MPU and Xcel Energy.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
Manitowoc Public Utility (MPU) is owned and operated by the City of Manitowoc. MPU provided comments supporting the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost.
|
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)
|
The objective of the proposed rule change is to aid transition of mercury emission regulation from under state rule to federal rule and therein reduce potential compliance costs and burden. As a result, there is no increase in costs to the affected EGUs and electric rate payers. Likewise, there is no negative impact on the state's economy. The Department received comments supporting this conclusion from three of the affected EGUs. The Department received no other comments.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The proposed rule change is intended to reduce potential compliance cost and burden. The alternative is to take no action which will result in electric utilities complying with state rule requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, on January 1, 2015 and then federal rule requirements beginning on April 16, 2015. These dual, staggered compliance requirements with both the state and federal rules will result in additional undue cost and use of resources. The proposed rule change modifies the initial compliance date for requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016. This approach accomplishes two goals; 1) it allows EGUs to comply first with federal requirements and thereby be exempt from the state rule requirements and 2) it ensures that mercury emission reductions are achieved in a timely fashion in the event that federal rules are delayed past April 16, 2016.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats., mercury emitted by electric utilities will no longer be regulated under state rules once emissions are regulated under federal rules. This means that in the long-term, mercury emitted by electric utilities will be regulated under federal rules. This proposed rule change is intended to facilitate this transition to regulation under the federal rules. Therefore, the proposed rule does not change the long-term outcome for regulating mercury emitted by coal-fired electric utilities.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
This rule action is consistent with federal rules regulating electric utility mercury emissions.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Mercury emitted by electric utilities in neighboring states will also be regulated by the same federal rules affecting Wisconsin electric utilities.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Tom Karman
|
(608) 264-8856
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
ATTACHMENT A
|
1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
The proposed rule change does not have a fiscal impact on small business for purposes of this EIA.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
|
3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?
|
⍽
Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements
⍽
Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting
⍽
Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements
⍽
Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards
⍽
Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements
⍽
Other, describe:
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽
Yes
⍽
No
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction proposes to repeal ss.
PI 21.01
(Note), 21.04 (4) (Note), and 21.05 (1) (Note), (2), and (2) (Note); amend s.
PI 21.04 (intro)
; and to repeal and recreate s.
PI 21.04 (4)
, relating to driver education programs.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (e)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule and fiscal estimate are published in the notice section of the Administrative Register and the required petition is not received by the agency within 30 days after publication of the notice.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (e)
, Stats., a public hearing will not be held for this rule change unless the required petition is received by the Department.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Under s.
227.11 (2) (a) (intro)
, Stats., "Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation." Under s.
115.28 (11)
, Stats., the DPI is required to approve driver education course plans that meet certain guidelines.
Related statute or rule
N/A.
Plain language analysis
Section
PI 21.05
requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to issue certificates. This will soon be unnecessary since the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to issue on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will not take effect until DOT begins issuing these on-line certificates.
Additionally, s.
PI 21.04
requires DPI to approve driver education course plans. However, to be more efficient, DPI is modifying the way it reviews driver education course plans. The DPI proposes modifying s.
PI 21.04
to state that a public or private high school, county children with disabilities education board, or a CESA submitting on behalf of a district that it has contracted with to provide driver education instructional services, must submit an assurance stating it is complying with the program requirements in s.
PI 21.04
in order to receive DPI approval. This assurance will substitute for DPI actively approving the specific program components. The DPI will continue to review each program's instructors to verify that their departmental driver education certification is current and valid.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
No information.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
These changes are designed to update the rule to reflect future practice. If these changes are not made, the rule may not align with agency practice.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
First, this rule change will avoid duplication of effort on the DPI's part because the DOT will be issuing on-line certificates for students in school driver education programs. Second, this rule change will make the approval process for driver education course plans faster because public or private high schools, county children with disabilities education boards, and CESAs will provide an assurance that their driver education course plans meet the necessary requirements and then the plans are approved. It will also save the DPI resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
There is not expected to be a cost to the private sector.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. PI 21.01 (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 2. PI 21.04 (intro) is amended to read:
PI 21.04 (intro)
A public school, private school, CCDEB, or CESA driver education program
shall be
is
approved by the department under s.
343.06 (1) (c)
, Stats., if the program uses vehicles which meet the requirements of s.
PI 21.03
and the program meets all of the following requirements:
SECTION 3. PI 21.04 (4) is repealed and recreated to read:
PI 21.04 (4)
Required assurance.
A public or private school, CCDEB, or CESA shall electronically submit to the department an assurance that its driver education course plan complies with the requirements of this subsection along with a list of their driver education instructors and their DPI teacher file numbers.
SECTION 4. PI 21.04 (4) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 5. PI 21.05 (1) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 6. PI 21.05 (2) is repealed.
SECTION 7. PI 21.05 (2) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22 (2) (intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 21, Driver Education Programs
|
Subject
|
Modifying the Course Plan Approval Process and the Driver Education Certificate Process
|
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
|
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽
No Fiscal Effect
X
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
|
PI 21.05 requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to issue certificates. This will soon be unnecessary since the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to issue on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will not take effect until DOT begins issuing these on-line certificates.
Additionally, PI 21.04 requires DPI to approve driver education course plans. However, to be more efficient, DPI is modifying the way it reviews driver education course plans. The DPI proposes modifying PI 21.04 to state that a public or private high school, county children with disabilities education board, or a CESA submitting on behalf of a district that it has contracted with to provide driver education instructional services, must submit an assurance stating they are complying with the program requirements in PI 21.04 in order to receive DPI approval. This assurance will substitute for DPI actively approving the specific program components. The DPI will continue to review each program's instructors to verify that their departmental driver education certification is current and valid.
|
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:
None. School districts would only need to provide DPI with the names and teacher file numbers of driver education instructors as well as an assurance that they are complying with the program requirements. Students in driver education programs would still receive credit for completing these programs but DOT, instead of DPI, would be in charge of that process. Additionally, this eliminates the need for storage of paper completion certificates; schools were required to store paper copies for 7 years but now local completion records will be able to be maintained and stored electronically.
State:
This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will eliminate printing costs associated with the printing of PI 1714 forms; eliminate shipping and postage associated with getting certificates to schools; and eliminates the time required to ship and mail certificates to schools. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The Department will reduce its role with regards to driver education programs while the roles of the DOT and those submitting driver education course plans will increase.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
No information.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
No information.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction hereby proposes an order to repeal Chapter
PI 29
, relating to grants for Preschool Through Grade 5 programs.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, there is no requirement that a public hearing be held for this rule because the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
None.
Explanation of agency authority
The Department of Public Instruction is repealing a rule that no longer has any statutory authority.
Related statute or rule
None.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule change is a technical change that would repeal a rule that no longer has any statutory authority.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
N/A.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
N/A.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
N/A.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Chapter PI 29 is repealed.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22(2)(intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 29, Grants for Preschool Through Grade 5 Programs
|
Subject
|
Repeal of PI 29
|
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
|
There is no longer funding or statutory authority for the Grants for Preschool Through Grade 5 Programs. Thus, the rule needs to be repealed.
|
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:
None. Preschool Through Grade 5 Program grants were eliminated in 2011 Act 32; repeal of the rule will have no fiscal effect.
State:
No fiscal effect.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule needs to be repealed since there is no longer any statutory authority for the program. Otherwise, the rule will not reflect current law.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Elimination of the rule will align the DPI Administrative Code with statutes.
|
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.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction hereby proposes an order to repeal Chapter
PI 31
, relating to grants for STEM programs.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, there is no requirement that a public hearing be held for this rule because the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
None.
Explanation of agency authority
The Department of Public Instruction is repealing a rule that no longer has any statutory authority or funding.
Related statute or rule
N/A.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule change is a technical change that would repeal a rule that no longer has any statutory authority.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
N/A.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
N/A.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
N/A.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Chapter PI 31 is repealed.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22 (2) (intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 31, Grants for STEM Programs
|
Subject
|
Repeal of PI 31
|
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
|
There is no longer funding or statutory authority for Grants for STEM Programs. Thus, the rule needs to be repealed.
|
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:
None. Grants for STEM Programs were eliminated in 2011 Act 32; repeal of the rule will have no fiscal effect.
State:
No fiscal effect.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule needs to be repealed since there is no longer any statutory authority for the grant program. Otherwise, the rule will not reflect current law.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Elimination of the rule will align the DPI Administrative Code with statutes.
|
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.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction proposes to repeal ss.
PI 32.01 (4)
(Note), 32.03 (2) (intro) (Note), (4) (a) (Note), and 32.05; and amend ss.
PI 32.01(4)
and
32.03 (2) (intro)
and
(4) (a)
, relating to grants for alcohol and other drug abuse programs.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (e)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule and fiscal estimate are published in the notice section of the Administrative Register and the required petition is not received by the agency within 30 days after publication of the notice.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (e)
, Stats., a public hearing will not be held for this rule change unless the required petition is received by the Department.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Related statute or rule
N/A.
Plain language analysis
First, the proposed rule change would realign ch.
PI 32
with the Wisconsin Statutes.
2011 Wisconsin Act 32
deleted ss.
20.255 (2) (dm)
and
115.361
, Stats. Thus, this rule change would eliminate the references to those statutory sections in the rule.
Second, this rule change would eliminate s.
PI 32.05
, which provides a detailed description for the Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) Program Advisory Council required under s.
115.36 (2) (e)
, Stats. The requirements in s.
PI 32.05
are no longer needed because
2011 Wisconsin Act 32
deleted one of the AODA appropriations (s.
20.255 (2) (dm)
, Stats.), which had the majority of the AODA grant funds. Given the reduced grant appropriations, the DPI believes that the size of the AODA Council can be reduced accordingly. Additionally, the description of the AODA Council is no longer needed in rule because, given the constantly changing amount of AODA funding, DPI needs the flexibility to adjust the Council's structure quickly through policy instead of the rulemaking process.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
No information.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The requirements in s.
PI 32.05
are no longer needed because
2011 Wisconsin Act 32
deleted one of the AODA appropriations (s.
20.255 (2) (dm)
, Stats.), which had the majority of the AODA grant funds. Given the reduced grant appropriations, the DPI believes that the size of the AODA Council can be reduced accordingly.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
If the size of the AODA Council is reduced, DPI will have to expend fewer resources staffing the AODA Council.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
There is not expected to be a cost to the private sector.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. PI 32.01(4) is amended to read:
PI 32.01 (4)
This chapter sets forth characteristics of a comprehensive kindergarten through grade 12 program including criteria and procedures in awarding grants under
ss
s.
115.36
and 115.361
, Stats.
SECTION 2. PI 32.01 (4) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 3. PI 32.03 (2)(intro) is amended to read:
PI 32.03 (2) (intro)
Aoda program content.
Under s.
115.36 (1)
, Stats., every public and private school is encouraged to develop AODA programs to prevent or ameliorate alcohol and other drug abuse among minors.
Sections
Section
115.36 (3)
and 115.361
, Stats., provide for grants to assist school districts in developing or supplementing AODA programs. An AODA program under this section may include any of the following:
SECTION 4. PI 32.03 (2) (intro) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 5. PI 32.03 (4) (a) is amended to read:
PI 32.03 (4) (a)
The state superintendent, annually, shall establish funding limits for programs under this section based on the amount appropriated for the program under s.
20.255 (2)
(dm) and (kd)
, Stats., using the criteria specified under par. (c) 2. The state superintendent shall inform school districts of the funding limits by letter which will accompany application materials.
SECTION 6. PI 32.03 (4) (a) (Note) is repealed.
SECTION 7. PI 32.05 is repealed.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22 (2) (intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 32, Grants for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Programs
|
Subject
|
2011 Wisconsin Act 32 Changes
|
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
|
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽
No Fiscal Effect
X
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
|
First, the proposed rule change would realign PI 32 with the Wisconsin Statutes. 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 deleted Sections 20.255(2) (dm) and 115.361, Stats. Thus, this rule change would eliminate the references to those statutory sections in the rule.
Second, this rule change would eliminate PI 32.05, which provides a detailed description for the Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) Program Advisory Council required under s. 115.36(2)(e). The requirements in PI 32.05 are no longer needed because 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 deleted one of the AODA appropriations (s. 20.255(2)(dm), Stats.), which had the majority of the AODA grant funds. Given the reduced grant appropriations, the DPI believes that the size of the AODA Council can be reduced accordingly
.
|
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:
None.
State:
If the size of the AODA Council is reduced, DPI will have to expend fewer resources staffing the AODA Council.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
This rule change aligns PI 32 with current statutes. Additionally, the requirements in PI 32.05 are no longer needed because 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 deleted one of the AODA appropriations (s. 20.255 (2) (dm), Stats.), which had the majority of the AODA grant funds. Given the reduced grant appropriations, the DPI believes that the size of the AODA Council can be reduced accordingly.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The size of the AODA Council will reflect the amount of AODA funding the Council oversees.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
No information.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
No information.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction hereby proposes an order to repeal Chapter
PI 33
, relating to grants for nursing services.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., there is no requirement that a public hearing be held for this rule because the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
None.
Explanation of agency authority
The Department of Public Instruction is repealing a rule that no longer has any statutory authority.
Related statute or rule
N/A.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule change is a technical change that would repeal a rule that no longer has any statutory authority.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
N/A.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
N/A.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
N/A.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Chapter PI 33 is repealed.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22 (2) (intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 33, Grants for Nursing Services
|
Subject
|
Repeal of PI 33
|
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
|
There is no longer funding or statutory authority for Grants for Nursing Services. Thus, the rule needs to be repealed.
|
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:
None. Grants for Nursing Services were eliminated in 2011 Act 32; repeal of the rule will have no fiscal effect.
State:
No fiscal effect.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule needs to be repealed since there is no longer any statutory authority for the grant program. Otherwise, the rule will not reflect current law.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Elimination of the rule will align the DPI Administrative Code with statutes.
|
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.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing
Public Instruction
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction hereby proposes to amend s.
PI 34.35 (1) (c)
, relating to the definition of immoral conduct.
The rules are being adopted under s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
As provided in s.
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., there is no requirement that a public hearing be held for this rule because the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.
Analysis by the Department
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department of Public Instruction has authority to promulgate rules to implement and administer s.
115.31
, Stats., relating to license or permit revocation, reports, and investigation.
Related statute or rule
N/A.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule change is a technical change that would modify the ch.
PI 34
definition of "immoral conduct" to reflect the statutory definition.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
N/A.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
N/A.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
N/A.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Schumacher
Budget and Policy Analyst
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(608) 267-9127
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. PI 34.35 (1) (c) is amended to read:
PI 34.35 (1) (c) "Immoral conduct"
means conduct or behavior which is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and endangers the health, welfare, safety or education of any pupil
has the meaning defined in s.
115.31 (1) (c)
, Stats
.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE:
The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s.
227.22 (2) (intro.)
, Stats.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
PI 34, Teacher Education Program Approval and Licenses
|
Subject
|
The Definition of Immoral Conduct
|
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 change in statutory definition, which will be reflected in the rule, was designed to specify that the intentional use of an educational agency's equipment to download, view, solicit, seek, display or distribute pornographic material was included in the definition of immoral conduct and was conduct for which a WI educator license could be revoked by the State Superintendent.
|
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:
None. The definition of immoral conduct was changed in 2011 Wisconsin Act 84; modification of this rule to reflect that statutory change will have no fiscal effect.
State:
No fiscal effect.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The Legislature intended to clarify what was included in the definition of immoral conduct by specifying that the definition includes the intentional downloading, viewing, or distributing of pornography on an educational agency's equipment.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Modification of the rule will align the DPI Administrative Code with statutes.
|
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.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Controlled Substances Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Controlled Substances Board in ss.
961.11 (1)
and
961.11 (4m)
, Wis. Stats., and interpreting s.
961.14
, Wis. Stats., the Controlled Substances Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider emergency rule creating s.
CSB 2.36
, relating to scheduling controlled substances.
Hearing Information
Date:
Monday, November 11, 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 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, Administrative Rules Coordinator, 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
sharon.henes@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on
November 11, 2013
, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Finding of Emergency
The Controlled Substances Board finds that an emergency exists and that this rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare. A statement of facts constituting the emergency is:
The Brown County District Attorney's office has provided the Controlled Substances Board with information relevant to emergency scheduling and the commencement of a prosecution concerning a controlled substance analog. UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48 are pharmacologically similar to Schedule I substances THC and JWH-018. By sharing pharmacological similarities with the Schedule I substances, synthetic cannabinoids pose a risk both to the individual user and other affected individuals. UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48 are being marketed as "legal" alternatives to marijuana. This characterization (and the reputation as potent herbal intoxicants) has increased their popularity and prevalence.
The Controlled Substances Board finds that scheduling of UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48 on an emergency basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. The substances are not included in any other schedule and no exemption or approval is in effect for the substance under
21 USC 355
.
On May 16, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration emergency scheduled UR-144, XLR11, and AKB48 as Schedule I, illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act.
Analysis Prepared by the Department
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The controlled substances board shall administer this subchapter and may add substances to or delete or reschedule all substances listed in the schedules in ss.
961.14
,
961.16
,
961.18
,
961.20
, and
961.22
, Stats., pursuant to the rule-making procedures of ch.
227
, Stats.
The controlled substances board, by rule and without regard to the requirements of sub. (1m), may schedule a controlled substance analog as a substance in schedule I regardless of whether the substance is substantially similar to a controlled substance in schedule I or II, if the board finds that scheduling of the substance on an emergency basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety and the substance is not included in any other schedule or no exemption or approval is in effect for the substance under
21 USC 355
. Upon receipt of notice under s.
961.25
, Stats., the board shall initiate scheduling of the controlled substance analog on an emergency basis under this subsection. The scheduling of a controlled substance analog under this subsection expires one year after the adoption of the scheduling rule. With respect to the finding of an imminent hazard to the public safety, the board shall consider whether the substance has been scheduled on a temporary basis under federal law or factors under sub. (1m) (d), (e), and (f), and may also consider clandestine importation, manufacture or distribution, and, if available, information concerning the other factors under sub. (1m). The board may not promulgate a rule under this subsection until it initiates a rule-making proceeding under subs. (1), (1m), (1r), and (2) with respect to the controlled substance analog. A rule promulgated under this subsection lapses upon the conclusion of the rule-making proceeding initiated under subs. (1), (1m), (1r), and (2)
with respect to the substance.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This rule schedules three substances commonly known as UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48 as Schedule I controlled substances.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
On May 16, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration emergency scheduled UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48 as Schedule I, illegal drugs under the Controlled Substances Act.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
A review of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act does not indicate scheduling of these three substances.
Iowa:
On July 9, 2013, the Iowa Pharmacy Board temporarily classified these three substances as Schedule I controlled substances. The temporary scheduling action by emergency action will remain effective until 60 days following the commencement of the next legislative session, during which time the Iowa Legislature will determine whether to add the substances to the Iowa Controlled Substances Act.
Michigan:
These three substances are scheduled in Michigan based upon any other synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids that is not listed in schedules II through V and is not approved by the federal food and drug administration as a drug.
Minnesota:
A review of the Minnesota Controlled Substances Act does not indicate scheduling of these three substances.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Based upon the Brown County District Attorney's request for emergency scheduling and the federal government's emergency scheduling, the Controlled Substances Board decided to schedule UR-144, XLR-11, and AKB48.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This proposed rule schedules three synthetic cannabinoid substances as Schedule I controlled substances which will not have an effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
This proposed rule will have no fiscal impact.
Effect on Small Business
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
tom.engels@wisconsin.gov
, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Text of Rule
Section
1. CSB 2.36 is created to read:
CSB 2.36 Additions to Schedule 1.
Section
961.14 (4) (ta)
AKB48: 1-pentyl-N-(1-adamantyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide.
Section
961.14 (4) (tym)
UR-144: 1-pentyl-3-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropoyl)indole
Section
961.14 (4) (tz)
XLR-11: 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropoyl)indole
Section
2. EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to s.
227.24 (1) (c)
, Stats., these rules shall take effect upon publication in the official state newspaper. (Effective date was October 13, 2013.)
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Joint Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Joint Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
,
227.11 (2)
and
470.03 (2)
, Stats., and interpreting s.
15.405 (2m)
, Stats., the Joint Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss.
GHSS 1.01
,
1.02
,
2.02
(Note), 2.03 (10) (Note), 2.05 (title), 3.02 (Note), 3.06 (10) (Note), 3.05 (title), 4.02 (Note), 4.06 (10) (Note), and 4.05 (title); repeal and recreate s.
GHSS 1.05
; and create s.
GHSS 1.055
and ch.
GHSS 6
, relating to continuing education requirements for professional geologists, hydrologists and soil scientists.
Hearing Information
Date:
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Time:
9:00 a.m..
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
(Enter at 55 North Dickinson St.)
Room 121
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 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, Administrative Rules Coordinator, 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
jean.maccubbin@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on
November 20, 2013
to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Analysis Prepared by the Department
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Examining Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologist and Soil Scientists is established and provided authority as given ch.
470
, Stats.
Section
15.08 (5) (b)
, Stats.: reads "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 profession."
Section
227.11 (2)
, Stats., reads: "Rule-making authority is expressly conferred as follows: (a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation. All of the following apply to the promulgation of a rule interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by an agency:..."
Section
470.03 (2)
, Stats., reads: "Upon the advice of the appropriate section of the examining board, the examining board may promulgate rules that establish continuing education requirements that a person must satisfy to be eligible to renew a license that is issued under this chapter."
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule-making order creates a new chapter, ch.
GHSS 6
, for continuing education requirements for licensed professional geologists, professional hydrologists and professional soil scientists within the jurisdiction of the Joint Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists as permitted in s.
470.03 (2)
, Stats. A scope statement to create continuing education (CE) requirements was approved and published in 2000; in 2013 the Joint Board convened a group having a representative from each section to work with department staff to create these rules.
The primary focus of this rule is the creation of a new chapter, ch.
GHSS 6
, Continuing Education. This chapter is drafted to be effective for the biennial renewal period beginning August 2014 and running through the end of July 2016; it does not apply to newly licensed individuals during this first biennial renewal period.
Licensees may accumulate the required 24 CEUs, continuing education units, over the 2-year period through a variety of providers and professional development activities. Also included are definitions pertinent to CE requirements, providers and professional development activities.
Licensees are expected to track their CEUs on a form designed for such purpose, although the submittal of the form is not required when certifying at time of renewal. Upon a random audit, the selected licensees shall submit such form and associated documentation to verify compliance to ch.
GHSS 6
.
The rule also recognizes the need for postponements or waivers to the rule for active military service and other specific circumstances. The handling of late renewals and reciprocity are also included in the rule.
SECTIONS 1. and 2. These sections are redrafted to recognize the new chapter and the first biennial renewal period for which the CE rules apply. Various Notes were amended in chs.
GHSS 2
,
3
, and
4
, where appropriate, to provide the URL in addition to department mailing address as listed.
SECTION 3. This section is created to provide the options available to licensees who fail to renew and adding that continuing education requirements are now in place.
SECTION 4. This section amends subsection titles in each chapter, chs.
GHSS 2
to
4
, to clarify that these education requirements are for pre-licensure not continuing education.
SECTION 5. This section comprises the newly created chapter, ch.
GHSS 6
, Continuing Education.
SECTION 6. This section specifies the date the rules become effective.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
An Internet-based search of the U.S. Code and Federal Register found that there is no existing or proposed federal regulation relating to continuing education for these professions.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
An Internet-based search of professional licenses and any requirements for continuing education revealed the following:
Illinois:
The state of Illinois licenses professional geologists, but has no continuing education requirements, part 1252 professional geologist licensing act. This state does not license professional hydrologists or professional soil scientists.
Iowa:
The state of Iowa licenses groundwater professionals (much like hydrologists), but does not require any continuing education. This state does not license professional geologists or professional soil scientists.
Michigan:
The state of Michigan does not license professional geologists, professional hydrologists, or professional soil scientists.
Minnesota:
The state of Minnesota licenses and requires 24 (professional development) hours every two years for renewal for licensed geologists and licensed soil scientists. This state does not license professional hydrologists.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Joint Board of Professional Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists authorized one member of each section to contribute to this rule-making project. With staff, they examined models of continuing education from various states and national organizations related to their respective professions, as well as from other regulatory boards aligned with the department.
The comparison information with the rules in adjacent states was obtained directly from administrative rules of those states when available through an Internet-based search. Reviewing rules of the two states having similar licenses and continuing education requirements, the proposed rules are substantially consistent with the rules in those states.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
Staff researched fees for various continuing education offerings applicable to the sections, primarily provided or sponsored by UW Madison, School of Engineering Professional Development and determined the following:
Course offerings fees*:
|
Offering
|
Min. Hours/Cost
|
Max. Hours/Cost
|
Classroom:
|
1 Hr./ $49
|
21 Hrs./ $1195
|
Online:
|
2 Hrs./ $149
|
20 Hrs./ $225
|
*Note: (local, no travel or lodging included)
Other professional development activities*:
|
Offering
|
Min. Hours/Cost
|
Max. Hours/Cost
|
Professional Meetings**
|
4 Hrs./ $100
|
40 Hrs./ $1000
|
*Note: (local, no travel or lodging included)
**Examples given include Geological Society of America (GSA) national or regional meeting, American Geophysical Union annual meeting, Wisconsin Section of the American Water Resources Association (AWRA) annual meeting, or associated professional organizations involving section-related topics.
Research was conducted regarding the availability of continuing education credits offered via online courses, trade association sponsored seminars and other means, as well as the costs associated therewith. That data was then compared with the requirements outlined in the proposed rules and based thereon, appears that these rules will have no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
This rule will not have a significant adverse effect on small business.
Environmental Assessment/Statement
Not required.
Agency Contact Person
Jean MacCubbin, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone: (608) 266-0955; email at
jean.maccubbin@wisconsin.gov
; or contact by 711 relay telecommunications.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Chs. GHSS 1 to 6, General Requirements and Procedures, and Continuing Education Requirements (Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists and Professional Soil Scientists).
|
3. Subject
|
Continuing Education Requirements for Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists and Professional Soil Scientists
.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
X
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
s. 20.165 (1) (g)
|
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
|
Develop and maintain continued competency of licensed Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists and Professional Soil Scientists.
|
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.
|
Licensed Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists and Professional Soil Scientists as well as those who benefit from or contract for their professional expertise.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None known.
|
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)
|
There is no direct impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility ratepayers or local governmental utilities or the state's economy as a whole.
Staff researched fees for various continuing education offerings applicable to the sections, primarily provided or sponsored by UW Madison, School of Engineering Professional Development [SOURCE:
http://epdweb.engr.wisc.edu/index.lasso
] and determined the following:
Course offerings fees*
Offering
Min. Hours/Cost
Max. Hours/Cost
Classroom:
1 Hr./$49
21 Hrs./$1195
Online:
2 Hrs./$149
20 Hrs./$225
*Note: (local, no travel or lodging included)
Other professional development activities*
Offering
Min. Hours/Cost
Max. Hours/Cost
Professional 4 Hrs/$100 40 Hrs/$1000
Meetings**
*Note: (local, no travel or lodging included)
**Examples given include Geological Society of America (GSA) national or regional meeting, American Geophysical Union annual meeting, Wisconsin Section of the American Water Resources Association (AWRA) annual meeting, or associated professional organizations involving section-related topics.
Research was conducted regarding the availability of continuing education credits offered via online courses, trade association sponsored seminars and other means, as well as the costs associated therewith. That data was then compared with the requirements outlined in the proposed rules and based thereon, appears that these rules will have no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
Develop and maintain continued competency of licensed Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists and Professional Soil Scientists. The status quo may negatively influence the creditability of maintaining a professional license.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Industry is constantly changing and new technologies and methodologies are being introduced, as are the professional skills of the workforce. Continuing education for licensed professionals ensures the public the professional competence of the licensees.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
The Federal government does not license or mandate continuing education for Professional Geologists, Professional Hydrologists or Professional Soil Scientists.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Licensing for professional geologists-- The state of Minnesota licenses and requires 24 (professional development) hours every two years for renewal. Illinois licenses professional geologists, but has no continuing education requirements.
Licensing for professional hydrologists—none of the four adjacent states license this profession. The state of Iowa licenses groundwater professionals (much like hydrologists), but does not require any continuing education.
Licensing for professional soil scientists—Of the four adjacent states, only the state of Minnesota licenses and requires 24 (professional development) hours every two years for renewal.
|
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.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Medical Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Medical Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
,
227.11 (2) (a)
,
448.05 (2)
, and
448.40 (1)
, Stats., and interpreting s.
448.05 (2)
, Stats., the Medical Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend s.
Med 1.02 (2)
, relating to requiring applicants for medical licensure to provide to the Medical Examining Board verified copies of their diplomas.
Hearing Information
Date:
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Time:
9:00 a.m..
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
(Enter at 55 North Dickinson St.)
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 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 Shawn Leatherwood, Rules Coordinator, 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
November 20, 2013
, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Analysis Prepared by the Department
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Medical Examining Board (Board), pursuant to ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
and
227.11
, Stats., has the general power to promulgate rules for guidance within the profession and to interpret the statutes it enforces. Section
448.40 (1)
, Stats., grants the Board authority to promulgate rules that carry out the purposes of the Medical Practices Act. The Board seeks to interpret a statute that it administers specifically, s.
448.05 (2)
, Stats., which deals with applicants being required to possess a diploma. Therefore, the Board is both generally and specifically empowered to promulgate the proposed rule.
Related statute or rule
None.
Plain language analysis
The proposed rule seeks to amend Wis. Admin Code s.
Med 1.02 (2)
by eliminating the requirement that applicants provide a verified photographic copy of their diploma when applying for licensure. The requirement is duplicative and unnecessary since the board receives information regarding graduation directly from medical and osteopathic schools of medicine.
Section 1. amends s.
Med 1.02 (2)
by deleting the language pertaining to a copy of the applicant's diploma.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois
Illinois requires an official transcript and diploma or an official transcript and certification of graduation from the medical school. 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1285.70.
Iowa
Iowa requires a copy of the applicant's medical degree and a certification from the medical school. 653 IAC 9.4 (147,148).
Michigan
Michigan requires that an applicant establish that he or she is a graduate of medical school. Mich. Admin. Code R 338.2317.
Minnesota
Minnesota requires an original or certified copy of the diploma from the medical or osteopathic school. Minn. R. 5600.0200 Subp. 2.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Medical Examining Board ensures 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
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
greg.gasper@wisconsin.gov
, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
None.
Agency Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood, Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone: (608) 261-4438; email:
shancethea.leatherwood@wisconsin.gov
.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Section Med 1.02
|
3. Subject
|
Diploma Copies
|
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
|
This rule addresses Med 1.02 (2). Currently Med. 1.02 requires applicants for medical licensure to file both documentary evidence from a medical or osteopathic school of medicine and a verified photographic copy of their diploma. Since the necessary information is readily supplied by the medical or osteopathic school, there is no need for applicants for medical licensure to provide a verified photographic copy of their diploma. This proposed rule seeks to remove the requirement to submit to the Medical Examining Board a verified photographic copy of the diploma conferring the medical or osteopathic degree.
|
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 will primarily impact applicants for medical licensure. This proposed rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website for 14 days in order to solicit comments from the public regarding the rule. No comments were received from the public regarding the rule.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
No local governmental units participated in the development of this EIA.
|
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 sector, 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
|
This proposed rule will benefit applicants for medical licensure by relieving them from complying with a duplicate step in the application process.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The proposed rule will advance the paperless initiative by reducing the use of paper copies.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Illinois:
Illinois requires an official transcript and diploma or an official transcript and certification of graduation from the medical school. 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1285.70.
Iowa:
Iowa requires a copy of the applicant's medical degree and a certification from the medical school. 653 IAC 9.4 (147,148).
Michigan:
Michigan requires that an applicant establish that he or she is a graduate of medical school. Mich. Admin. Code R 338.2317.
Minnesota:
Minnesota requires an original or certified copy of the diploma from the medical or osteopathic school. Minn. R. 5600.0200 Subp. 2.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Shawn Leatherwood
|
(608) 261-4438
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
