Scope Statements
Employee Trust Funds
Subject
Revises Chapters
ETF 10,
11,
20,
40,
41,
50,
52,
60, and
70 relating to making technical changes by deleting unnecessary notes following certain rules, including references to receipt and transmission of documents by email and fax, making address changes, listing ETF's website address, updating names of state agencies, deleting terms no longer used in Chapter
40, Stats., or ETF rules, updating cross references to statutes and rules, eliminating certain restrictions on spouse beneficiaries, and making other technical and minor substantive changes.
Objective of the Rule
ETF proposes to update the administrative rules in each administrative code chapter promulgated by ETF.
Policy Analysis
ETF is responsible for administering the benefit programs authorized under Chapter
40, Stats. The purpose of this rulemaking is to make the necessary technical updates and corrections to existing ETF rules.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
No existing or proposed federal regulation addresses the contemplated rule changes.
Entities Affected by the Rule
The new rules will affect members, subscribers, their beneficiaries and dependents who interact with ETF regarding the benefit programs administered by ETF.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
State employees will spend an estimated 40 hours to develop these rules.
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
(DNR # WM-02-11)
Subject
Revises Chapters
NR 10,
15,
16 and
19. (2011 housekeeping rule scope statement).
Objective of the Rule
The Bureau of Wildlife Management recommends promulgating administrative rules modifying chapters NR 10, 15, 16 and 19 related to game and hunting, game refuges, captive wildlife and miscellaneous fur, fish, game and outdoor recreation.
Policy Analysis
Every year the department promulgates a rule order that contains changes that are considered to be minor and non-controversial. This package, known as the annual housekeeping order, helps to correct inaccuracies and clarify existing regulations. Policy issues affected by this rule are ones which have already been addressed decided by previous rulemaking.
The Bureau of Wildlife Management recommends promulgating administrative rules that modify sections of chapters NR 10 15m 16 and 19, Wis. Admin. Code. These rule changes related to hunting, trapping and captive wild animals and are minor and unlikely to be controversial. The intent of these rule changes is to correct drafting errors, provide clarification to existing rules, simplify regulations, and update administrative code language and references. Specifically, these rules will; make archery deer registration in CWD zone consistent with other areas, legalize 10 gauge chamber inserts used in 8 gauge shotguns for migratory bird hunting, clarify existing interpretation of baiting regulations related to the use of milk, eggs, and definition of an animal part or byproduct, allow DNR customer I.D. number on cable restraint tags, update to be consistent with new statutory provisions of "Green Fur Bill", amend the geographical description of Vernon Marsh refuge, and clarify that the rehabilitation requirements for basic license holders also apply to volunteers who are assisting advanced license holders.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Hunters, trappers and wildlife rehabilitators are the principal groups that will be affected by this rulemaking.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
306 hours.
Contact Person
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
(DNR # WM-01-11)
Subject
Revising Chapters
NR 10 and
45. (2011 Spring hearing).
Objective of the Rule
The Bureau of Wildlife Management recommends promulgating administrative rules modifying Chapters
NR 10 and
45 related to game and hunting and DNR managed lands.
Policy Analysis
These rule changes are proposed for inclusion on the 2011 Spring Hearing rules package and questionnaire. This rule package will create and amend hunting and trapping regulations, captive wildlife rules and the management of department lands.
Specifically, these rules would; prohibit preseason marking of trap locations, extend each spring turkey hunting period from 5 to 7 days, repeal the sunset of the extended fall turkey season in Zones 1 - 5, extend the archery deer hunting season to include the 9 days of the traditional November firearm season, modify elk seasons dates for a September instead of December hunt, allow all day pheasant hunting on weekends at stocked 2:00 p.m. closure properties, establish that submission of bear carcass samples for research may be required, eliminate blaze orange requirements during an elk hunting season, allow rifles for deer hunting in Waupaca County, establish or modify deer hunting seasons at individual state parks, establish that landowners may kill a cougar that is in the act of killing a domestic animal, and prohibit target shooting on DNR lands in Manitowoc, Pierce and St. Croix counties.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Hunters, trappers, recreational users of DNR lands and certain deer farmers are the principal groups that will be affected by this rulemaking.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
306 hours.
Contact Person
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
(DNR # FH-03-11)
Subject
Revises Chapters
NR 20 and
23, relating to proposed fishing regulation changes for 2011 Spring Fish and Wildlife Rules Hearings.
Objective of the Rule
The proposed rule would make modifications to portions of Chapters
NR 20 and
23, pertaining to recreational fishing regulations on inland waters and Wisconsin-Michigan boundary waters.
Policy Analysis
The department is beginning the process of recommending changes to Wisconsin administrative code related to recreational fishing regulations. These changes are proposed to better protect and enhance the State's fish resources. The department anticipates requesting hearings to these changes in January 2011, and holding hearings, if approved, in April 2011 as part of the department's annual spring fish & wildlife rules hearings.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to States. No federal regulations apply to the proposed changes in regulation recreational fishing activity.
Entities Affected by the Rule
The proposed rule changes will affect recreational anglers.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The department anticipates spending approximately 320 hours in the rule development process.
Contact Person
Joseph M. Hennessy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Fisheries Management (FM/4)
101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53701-7921
Phone: 608-267-9427
Fax: 608-266-2244
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
(DNR # FH-50-10)
Subject
Revising Chapter
NR 25, relating to commercial trap netting in Lake Michigan.
Objective of the Rule
This rulemaking pertains to commercial trap netting in Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan. It attempts to address safety concerns regarding trap nets.
Policy Analysis
Department policy reflects Legislative intent in attempting to accommodate both sport and commercial fishing in Lake Michigan. Trap nets are fixed structures on the lake bottom that can pose a risk to sport trollers whose lures and downriggers can become entangled in the trap net ropes. This raises the question of when and where trap nets should be allowed.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Rules will be drafted in response to petitions received by the Department calling for restrictions on trap netting in the southern part of Wisconsin's Lake Michigan waters. Two alternative rules were proposed by petitioners: one would ban trap nets during June through August in all of commercial fishing Zone 3; the other would ban trap nets during June through August from between lines of latitude drawn five miles north of and five miles south of each of three ports – Manitowoc, Two Rivers, and Sheboygan. The rules will include alternate or additional approaches recommended by the Department to address trap net use.
Entities Affected by the Rule
The rules will directly affect only the commercial fishers who use the trap nets. They will indirectly affect sport trollers who fish in the waters where trap nets may or may not be allowed.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
One week.
Contact Person
William Horns
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster St.
Madison, WI 53707-7921
608-266-8782
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
Environmental Protection, Chs.
NR 400—
Environmental Protection, Chs.
NR 500—
(DNR # AM-05-11)
Subject
Revises Chapters
NR 30,
429,
502 and
506, relating to open burning requirements.
Objective of the Rule
The objective of the proposed rule revisions is to make the Department's forestry (
ss. NR 30.03 and 30.04), air (
s. NR 429.04) and solid waste (s
s. NR 502.11 and 506.04) open burning rules consistent with each other, and to provide clarity for the definitions, exemptions and procedures listed in s.
NR 429.04.
Some of the open burning rules are inconsistent with each other or outdated, which often causes confusion for interested stakeholders. For example, s.
NR 429.04 (1) (e), states that burning small amounts of dry combustible rubbish (not to include wet combustible rubbish, garbage, oily substances, asphalt, plastic or rubber products), except where prohibited by local ordinance, is exempt from the prohibition of open burning. The words “small" and “rubbish" are not defined, thus the Department is frequently challenged on the interpretation of this exemption. Differences between the open burning rules often create confusion. For example, the open burning exemptions listed in s.
NR 502.11 (2) (b), conflict with those listed in s.
NR 429.04 (1) (i) and
(h).
The Department has identified at least 26 inconsistencies or needed rule clarifications within the current forestry, air and solid waste open burning rules. The Department proposes to revise the air open burning rule and provide references in the solid waste and forestry rules to the air rule where appropriate. This should help eliminate confusion and the inconsistent interpretation of the current open burning rules.
Policy Analysis
The purpose of this proposed rule revision is to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the Department's existing open burning rules. In providing clarity, some previous misconceptions regarding the rules will be addressed. The Department's current policies on what is appropriate for open burning will be discussed.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The Department is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulations regarding open burning. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has typically encouraged state and local governments to address this issue. For example, in August 2003, EPA release a brochure entitled, “State and Local Governments Are Key to Reducing Backyard Burning."
Entities Affected by the Rule
The main purpose of the proposed rule revisions is to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the Department's open burning regulations. Those stakeholders eligible for the open burning exemptions, as currently written, will most likely have an interest in any proposed rule revisions. There are several other organizations that may not be directly affected by the rule, but are likely to have an interest in this rule revision, including Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, environmental organizations, such as Clean Wisconsin and Sierra Club, and public health organizations.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
A total of about 244 hours is needed for drafting and internal review of the proposed changes.
Contact Person
Joseph Hoch
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
608-264-8861
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection-Investigation and Remediation of Environmental Contamination, Chs.
NR 700—
(DNR # RR-04-11)
Subject
Revises Chapter
NR 700, relating to contaminated sites investigation and cleanup rules.
Objective of the Rule
This supplemental scope statement has been prepared for 2 reasons. First, we are combining 3 separate pink sheets related to proposed changes to the NR 700 series into a single rulemaking effort in order to more efficiently utilize staff resources. Second, several statutory and policy changes have occurred that were not identified in any of the previous scope statements. This document identifies the major changes that are being addressed by this rulemaking effort.
The NR 700 rule series provides the comprehensive requirements for investigation and remediation of contaminated property. Although additions and revisions to the rule have been made since it was originally promulgated over 15 years ago, those changes tended to be focused on very specific issues. As a result, the many statutory, policy and technical changes that have occurred since that time are the subject of these proposed revisions.
Policy Analysis
There are a number of policy issues that are being addressed by these proposed rule changes. A summary of the major changes include:
Implementation of ch. 292.12 – On June 3, 2006 the Legislature passed Wisconsin Act 418. This legislation authorized the agency with administrative authority over a contaminated site to impose requirements as a condition of approving remedial action or issuing a case closure letter when residual contamination remains on the site. Prior to the passage of this legislation, deed restrictions were used as the mechanism to ensure that conditions at the site remained protective over time. Numerous chapters throughout the NR 700 series require modification to remove references to deed restrictions and include language that specifies the new requirements.
Simple Site Process – When the NR 700 rule series was originally promulgated it included provisions that allowed for “simple sites" to be closed through a self certification process without formal DNR review and approval. This approach was only seldom used since the vast majority of responsible parties wanted regulatory signoff to document that they had adequately completed the cleanup process. It is proposed to remove the simple site process from the rule.
Site Ranking – Chapter
NR 710 was originally established to provide DNR with a process for ranking sites with environmental contamination. This rule is being proposed for elimination in part because the statutory provision for DNR to inventory sites was repealed and the process for scoring a site using the hazard ranking system is no longer needed to determine the environmental priority of a site.
Management of Contaminated Soil – There are currently 3 sections in ch.
NR 718 that address management of contaminated soil (NR 718.11, NR 718.13, and 718.14). These sections have overlapping and sometimes inconsistent requirements. The rule is being revised to consolidate all of the provisions into one section (NR 718.12) as well as clarifying the requirements that apply.
Determining Soil Cleanup Standards – Revisions to ch.
NR 720 (Soil Cleanup Standards) are being made in order to be consistent with changes made by U.S. EPA to the methodology for calculating site specific soil cleanup standards.
Sustainability of Cleanups – Provisions are being added to ch.
NR 722 (Standards for Selecting Remedial Actions) that require an evaluation of sustainability once the preferred option has been selected.
Restructuring ch. NR 726 – This rule, which covers case closure requirements, is lengthy and complicated. In order to make the provisions easier to find and understand it is proposed to create 2 new rules. The first rule, NR 725, would cover pre-closure issues including specific notification requirements to property owners when continuing obligations will be necessary. The other rule, NR 727, would address post closure issues including modification of existing post closure obligations. In addition to moving existing requirements, it is proposed to add several new requirements including notification of DNR when the land use/zoning changes, when the exposure assumptions that were used to obtain closure change, or when an engineering control or structural impediment are removed. Finally, several provisions are being added to address sites with vapor intrusion issues.
Streamlining ch. NR 746 – This rule was originally promulgated in 2001 to provide an alternative process for certain petroleum contaminated sites to obtain closure. This rule provided detailed requirements related to performing Site Investigations, along with specifying risk screening and closure criteria for certain petroleum contaminated sites with the primary goal of minimizing the costs associated cleanup of petroleum contaminated sites. In practice, these provisions were seldom used and as a result this rule language is being proposed for deletion. In addition, Appendix A of this rule provides for use of a statistical test for evaluating whether groundwater contamination is stable or receding. There are technical problems associated with those tests that often render the results inconclusive or inaccurate and therefore the entire Appendix is being proposed for elimination.
Changes to the Fee Table – The fee table in ch.
NR 749 is being restructured such that similar types of DNR assistance are grouped together. The fees are being raised to account for increased costs that have occurred since the rules were originally promulgated over 12 years ago.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
With several minor exceptions, the proposed revisions are not based on changes to Federal regulations. An example of one of the minor exceptions is summarized as follows: EPA publishes testing protocols for soil and groundwater samples. The NR 700 series has references to these test methods which are being updated to include the most recent federal version.
Entities Affected by the Rule
The entities affected by these rule changes include responsible parties and others who are conducting investigation and cleanup of contaminated property. Environmental attorneys, consultants, local units of government and industries will be potentially impacted by these proposed changes.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that the rule will become effective in March, 2012.
Contact Person
Mark Gordon, RR/5
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-7278
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
Develop initial administrative rules relating to creating a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) pursuant to
2009 Wisconsin Act 362 and implemented pursuant to 450.19 and 961.31, Wisconsin Statutes, as necessary to meet minimum grant requirements to be eligible for grant funding for implementation of the program.
Objective of the Rule
To implement the statutory provisions of
2009 Wisconsin Act 362 creating 450.19 (5). This section requires the department to submit grant applications to Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program as well as NASPER (
42 USC 380g-3) to fund the establishment and operation of the program. The grants have minimum requirements that must be met to be eligible for funding. To meet these requirements it is necessary for the Pharmacy Examining Board to develop portions of the PDMP, as outlined below.
1. Under, 450.19 (1), determine the Schedules of substances to include in the PDMP.
2. Under 450.19 (2) (b), identify the data elements the PDMP shall require to be contained in a record documenting the dispensing of a prescription drug. These elements shall be minimally consistent with standards established by the American Society for Automation in Pharmacy (ASAP), version 4.1 or higher.
3. Under 450.19 (2) (c), determine limitations on the disclosure of records and specify the circumstances under which entities may obtain or receive records as well as meet minimum requirements for authentication and certification as recommended by NASPER.
4. Under 450.19 (d), determine minimum database security standards taking into account:
a. Standards set forth in regulations promulgated under section 262 of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-91; 110 Stat. 2033).
b.
Technical safeguard standards of the HIPAA Security Rule under
45 CFR 164.312.
d. Server and firewall configuration as well as back up and restore needs.
e. Consideration of encryption needs for web-based applications.
5. Under 450.19 (2) (e), determine the frequency of reporting from practitioners or pharmacists of records to the board.
6. Determine health information interoperability standards using the Integrated Justice Information System's NIEM XML standard. Determine how the PDMP will achieve interoperability with at least one geographically bordering state.
7. Develop a performance assessment to help determine whether goals are achieved or being achieved.
Policy Analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 362 created 450.19. To receive federal funding as required by 450.19 (5), it is necessary for the Pharmacy Examining Board to determine certain portions of the PDMP's administrative rules. Without determining some minimum requirements, the department will be unable to submit a successful grant application.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is no current federal law or pending legislation establishing a federal prescription drug monitoring program. While this is not an area specifically regulated on a federal basis, by virtue of the federal grant programs, there will be some consistency across states as to what such programs require, how such programs will operate, and the ability to transfer information between states.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Practitioners and pharmacists that will be required to generate records and submit data regarding prescriptions and patients whose information may be reported to practitioners, pharmacists, public health or law enforcement.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
400 hours.
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
Revises Chapter
Phar 1, relating to changing “north American pharmacy licensing examination" to “North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination" (NAPLEX) – Phar 1.02 (7).
Changes “American council on pharmaceutical education" to “Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education" (ACPE).
Objective of the Rule
To specifically reference the name of the examination currently required of applicants for licensure – the “North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX); and, to change the reference from the “American Council on Pharmaceutical Education" to the “Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education" (ACPE).
Policy Analysis
The rule will specifically reference the name of the examination currently required of applicants for licensure; the “North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination" (NAPLEX) is already referenced as NAPLEX elsewhere in the code and statutes.
The name of the organizational organization which is responsible for approving a majority of pharmacist education required for licensure and continuing education required for renewal was changed in 2003 from the “American Council on Pharmaceutical Education" to the “Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education" (ACPE). The relevant rules should be updated to reflect the change.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Pharmacist license applicants, preceptors, pharmacies, pharmacy schools, and the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
40 hours.
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
Increasing the internship hours required from 1500 hours to 1740 hours - Phar 17.02 (5).
Changes student non-academic internship requirements – Phar 17.07 (1) and (2).
Objective of the Rule
To increase the amount of hours of internship needed from 1500 hours to 1740 hours for all classes of internships and to change student non-academic internship requirements.
Policy Analysis
The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) approved the following at its 104
th meeting in August, 2008: “The applicant demonstrates that at least 1,500 hours, and effective January 1, 2012, at least 1,740 hours, of practical pharmacy experience under the instruction of a licensed pharmacist have been acquired." Bylaws, Article II, Section 2 (a) (iv).
http://www.nabp.net/ftpfiles/NABP01/ReportCBL
07.pdf.
An undergraduate or postgraduate pharmacy degree from an Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) school or college of pharmacy is the basic requirement for applicants to be considered for a credential. Most countries require a four or five year course for a Bachelor's degree in pharmacy or in science (in pharmacy). In 1990, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) mandated that a doctor of pharmacy degree would be the new first professional degree in the United States beginning with the class of 2001, replacing the Bachelor's degree. This involves completion of four years at an accredited school or college of pharmacy, including practical experience. Most applicants have completed an undergraduate degree but many are admitted after completing two years of undergraduate pharmacy prerequisites. The required number of hours of required practical experience, or internship, varies by state.
Pharmacy students are allowed to participate in two different kinds of internships to meet the internship requirement; academic and non-academic. Students are not allowed to double count internship hours but can supplement academic internship hours with student non-academic internship hours. This type of internship allows students to practice pharmacy under the direct supervision of a supervising pharmacist. The supervising pharmacist must be licensed in this state. Direct supervision means immediate, on premises availability to continually coordinate, direct and inspect, at first hand, the practice of another. Students are currently eligible to participate in a non-academic student internship if they have successfully completed their second year of pharmacy school and are enrolled in a professional bachelor's of science degree in pharmacy or doctor of pharmacy degree program in Wisconsin or another state. Changing the requirement to allow for flexibility in the degree of experience the student participating in an internship like this will allow more students to participate and gain practical experience.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
None.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Pharmacist license applicants, preceptors, pharmacies, pharmacy schools, and the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that 120 staff hours will be needed to promulgate this rule.
