Explanation of agency authority
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
The passage of
2009 Wisconsin Act 356 created a definition for deceptive practices which further clarifies what constitutes deceptive advertising. The new definition includes a list of specified types of representation or materials which are considered deceptive advertising if they are misleading, false or untruthful.
The Act also amends deceptive practices as a basis for professional discipline by eliminating the words false and misleading which are now included in the new definition.
This rule is amended to be consistent with the statutory changes.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
Iowa:
645 Iowa Admin. Code 304.2(4) defines professional incompetency as including but not limited to the use of untruthful or improbable statements in advertisements and actions by a licensee in making information or intention known to the public which is false, deceptive, misleading or promoted through fraud or misrepresentation.
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODOCS/DOCS/304.2.pdf
Illinois:
68 Illinois Admin. Code 1465.95(j) provides that the licensing authority may take disciplinary action against a speech-language pathology and audiology license based upon its finding of unethical, unauthorized or unprofessional conduct which includes “deceptive, misleading, false representation."
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/06801465sections.html
Minnesota:
Chapter 148.5195(10), of the Minnesota Statutes, provides that disciplinary action may be taken against an audiologist for advertising in a manner that is false or misleading or engaging in conduct that is likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public.
http://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=148.5195
Michigan:
The State of Michigan does not have administrative rules governing advertising by audiologists.
http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-27417_2529_31491---,00.html
The comparison of the proposed rules to the adjacent states demonstrates that the proposed rules are relatively comparable to those in adjacent states.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
No additional factual data or analytical methodologies used. The modifications were prescribed by
2009 Act 356.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This rule creates a change in a definition to match the statutory definition created by
2009 Act 356 which does not impact small businesses. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.
Fiscal estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
There is no effect on small businesses.
Agency contact person
Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-2377; email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original Updated Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Sections HAS 6.18 (1) (d) and 6.175 (6)
|
Subject
|
Deceptive Advertising
|
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
|
None
|
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
|
2009 Act 356 created a definition for deceptive practices which further clarifies what constitutes deceptive advertising. The new definition includes a list of specified types of representation or materials which are considered deceptive advertising if they are misleading, false or untruthful. The Act also amends deceptive practices as a basis for professional discipline by eliminating the words false and misleading which are now included in the new definition. This rule is amended to be consistent with the statutory change.
|
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
No economic or fiscal impact to business, organization or the economy as a whole.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The benefit of implementing the rule is to bring the rule into compliance with the statutory changes.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The long range implication is clarity between the statutes and the rule.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
The comparison of the proposed rules to the adjacent states demonstrates that the proposed rules are relatively comparable to those in adjacent states.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Sharon Henes (608) 261-2377
|
