Scope statements
Barbering and Cosmetology Examining Board
Subject
Creating an administrative rule relating to the disinfection of foot spas within licensed cosmetology establishments. Several states, particularly California and Texas, have experienced an outbreak of severe skin infections developed after the person received pedicures involving the use of a foot spa. Public Health Department officials attribute the cause of the outbreak to the improper cleaning and maintenance of the spa.
Objective of the rule. To ensure that foot spas in licensed cosmetology establishments will be properly sanitized and to reduce the risk of the public becoming infected. The rule should minimize the risk of an outbreak of skin infections from the use of foot spas and will create a uniform approach to address foot spa sanitization.
Policy analysis
A lack of proper sanitation can lead to the spread of bacteria and infection among customers. The Wisconsin Division of Public Health has published sanitizing recommendations. The Barbering & Cosmetology Board has also published similar recommendations. This is the first proposed rule in this area. Adequate alternatives do not exist to ensure that foot spas will be properly sanitized.
Statutory authority
Comparison with federal requirements
There is none.
Entities affected by the rule
Licensed cosmetology establishments.
Staff time required
300 hours.
Educational Approval Board
Subject
Section
EAB 4.06, relating to student protection.
Objective of rule. This proposed rule will amend current administrative provisions related to the EAB's student protection fund.
Policy analysis
Under s.
EAB 4.06, the EAB currently has the authority assess regulated schools a fee for student protection fund. The amount of the fee is based on a rate of $0.50 per $1,000 of adjusted gross annual school revenue as reported by the schools. This proposed rule would allow the EAB to set the student protection fee at a rate necessary to protect the viability of the fund, as determined by the board.
Policy alternatives
The only policy alternative is to retain current administrative rule, which would put the viability of the fund in jeopardy should a catastrophic school closure deplete the fund balance.
Statutory authority
Entities affected by the rule
This proposed rule will only affect those entities that are subject to EAB regulation, as defined in s.38.50 (1)(e) as a postsecondary school.
Comparison with federal requirements
The governance of postsecondary education is a responsibility of individual states. There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that are intended to be addressed in the activities regulated by this rule.
Staff time required
It is estimated that 10 hours will be required to develop this rule order.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. The proposed rule, revising ch.
NR 47, will define the purpose, eligibility, application procedures, selection criteria, funding rates, audit procedures and general provisions of the Logging Certification Scholarship program.
Policy analysis
This is a new program with no prior policies or rules. The NRB has established administrative rules for several grant-type programs in the past however.
This program will affect individuals seeking Master Logger Certification (MLC). The intended purpose of the scholarship program will be to encourage and maintain participation in the Master Logger certification program. Quality logging professionals help to ensure sound management of our forests. The MLC program will facilitate production of certified forest products from Wisconsin's woodlands. The certified status of Wisconsin's forest products also helps satisfy the growing demand for such products and ensure Wisconsin's place in the global forest products marketplace.
Comparison with federal requirements
There are no companion federal regulations for the Master Logger program. The principles and standards of Wisconsin's MLC were patterned after a program established in the State of Maine but federal regulations or funding has not been involved.
Statutory authority
The FY05-07 budget created s.
26.39 (7), Wis. Stats. that awards a continuing appropriation to be provided annually to contribute to the cost of logging contractors seeking Master Logger Certification administered through the Wisconsin Professional Loggers Association (WPLA). The allocation for FY06 is to be $50,000 with subsequent fiscal years being funded at $150,000.
Staff time required
80 hours of Dept. staff time.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters are listed in Chapter
NR 102 (Wis. Adm. Code), and are defined as waters which provide valuable fisheries, hydrologically or geologically unique features, outstanding recreational opportunities and unique environmental settings. A revision to Ch.
NR 102 – prompted by an August 2004 petition from Midwest Environmental Advocates, River Alliance of Wisconsin, and other conservation groups – is needed to list additional waters as Outstanding or Exceptional. The petition specifically asks the Department to provide additional regulatory protection for 100 of northern Wisconsin's highest quality rivers by designating those streams as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or Exceptional Resource Water (ERW). It is probable that a subset of the 100 segments will be recommended for designation. Attached is a pink sheet related to proposed code modifications to sections
NR 102.10 and
NR 102.11 to allow for the listing of additional waters as Outstanding or Exceptional Resource Waters (O/ERW), respectively. Upon adoption of the proposed revisions, newly designated waters would be afforded the additional regulatory protection that the O/ERW designations provide.
Policy analysis
To date, changes made to Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters, as listed in NR 102.10 and NR 102.11, have been initiated by the Department. An initial listing of O/ERW waterbodies was established in 1988 and1989, with subsequent additional designations being made in 1993 and 1998. The receipt of this August 2004 petition is the first time that the Department has addressed a public request to recommend additional waters as Outstanding or Exceptional. In this situation, the Department chose to evaluate those segments listed in the petition and will make a recommendation of those waterbody segments that can appropriately be recommended for O/ERW designation. Alternatively, a decision could have been made to not address the petition, and to continue making updates to NR 102.10 and NR 102.11 at the recommendation of the Natural Resource Board or as otherwise deemed necessary by Department Administration.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
To respond to the petition that was presented to the NRB, and to subsequently propose changes to those waters listed in NR 102.10 and NR 102.11, a Department workgroup will need to evaluate each of the waterbodies in question, and determine the appropriateness of classifying them as ORW or ERW. This process could take a significant amount of time, and it is estimated that approximately 800 hours of staff time will be needed to process this rule.
Comparison with federal requirements
Under the Clean Water Act, s. 303, the federal government requires the states to adopt water quality standards; however the federal government does not have its own water quality standards.
Entities affected by the rule
The listing of additional waterbodies as O/ERW in NR 102, as will result from action on the petition, could potentially affect numerous interest groups.
Various regional and statewide conservation organizations believe that designating specific streams in northern Wisconsin as ORW/ERW will provide additional protection many of the most highly valued waters that were identified by citizens of Northern Wisconsin during the development of the Northern Rivers Initiative of the mid to late-1990's.
Communities interested in expanding eco-tourism as a revenue base may find support by having more waters identified as O/ERW within their area of influence. This may have a positive impact on the economy of these communities.
