Required Manure Storage
Ten-Year Ten-Year
Low Cost
High Cost
Farmers' costs $ 8,700,000 $13,200,000
State's costs $20,300,000 $30,800,000
Total $29,000,000 $44,000,000
Proposed performance standard: A livestock operation shall have no overflow of manure storage facilities." "A livestock operation shall have no unconfined manure pile in a water quality management area." "A livestock operation shall have no direct runoff from a feedlot or stored manure into the waters of the state." A livestock operation shall not allow unlimited access by livestock to waters of the state in a location where high concentrations of animals prevent the maintenance of adequate sod cover.
Ten-Year Ten-Year
Low Cost
High Cost
Farmers' costs $24,000,000 $ 31,800,000
State's costs $56,000,000 $ 74,200,000
Total $80,000,000 $106,000,000
Because the estimated costs are so large, much of the required work may not get done, or at least it may not get done in the immediate future. The law requires that at least 70% cost sharing must be provided before a farmer may be required to do work to meet a performance standard. Therefore, the governing factor determining what a farmer must do is the amount of cost-share dollars the state has available each year. DATCP currently has approximately $3,000,000 to $3,500,000 a year in cost-share funds. Added to the farmers' share, this will install about $4,300,000 to $5,000,000 worth of conservation practices each year. The average grant amount for a contract issued by the department is between $15,000 and $20,000. If the department's cost-share funding stays at approximately $3 to $3.5 million, the total number of farmers that we will be able to work with will be between 150 and 250 each year. In their land and water resource management plans, counties may find different ways to reach more people with the available cost-share dollars. In addition, counties could use money from other programs to help meet the performance standards, where applicable.
This proposed rule does require additional reporting and record-keeping activities from farmers. For farmers who have not been doing conservation or nutrient management work, these reporting and record-keeping activities will be new. It is anticipated that more cost-share dollars will be made available under this new program and, therefore, more farmers will have to do the reporting, record keeping and other requirements associated with receiving grants. The procedures required of these farmers includes preparing and following conservation or erosion control plans for cropland fields, preparing and following nutrient management plans for fields on which nutrients are applied, and agreeing to and following contracts as a condition for receiving cost-share funds. Farmers will have to keep track of plans and be able to document activities to demonstrate compliance with them. These rule requirements will mean that farmers must understand and keep records of soil types, nutrient requirements of various crops, nutrient content of various kinds and amounts of manure and planned schedules for applying nutrients and conservation practices.
Most farmers are aware of conservation and nutrient management plans and the factors that go into determining erosion rates and amounts of nutrients to be applied. County-based conservation professionals are available to assist farmers with making calculations, interpreting plans and reading designs and specifications. The requirement for all farmers to prepare and follow nutrient management plans may require some farmers to become more familiar with crop needs, soil types and nutrient levels in livestock manure. We can assume that most farmers have this knowledge and these skills, but they may have to be increased or refined to meet the nutrient management requirements, depending on the skill of the individual farmer involved.
Crop consultants, farm cooperatives, farm supply organizations, and manure-haulers
Those providing nutrient management planning services to farmers and those selling fertilizers to farmers will be affected by this rule. Nutrient management planners will have to be recognized by the department as being qualified to prepare plans. Their work will be reviewed periodically by the department.
More state and landowner funds will likely be spent on preparing nutrient management plans, thereby increasing business opportunities for this industry. All cropland acres to which nutrients are applied will be required to be following nutrient management plans. As many as nine to ten million cropland acres could require nutrient management plans at an average cost of between six and ten dollars an acre.
On the other hand, the sale of commercial fertilizers will probably be reduced. In addition, those who sell fertilizers to farmers will have to keep records of who prepared nutrient management plans for those farmers purchasing the fertilizers. Those selling fertilizers will not be required to refuse sales if no nutrient management plan has been prepared, but they must make records available to department inspectors upon request.
Nutrient management planners will have to become familiar with the University of Wisconsin nutrient recommendations in the UW Extension publication number A2809. They will have to become familiar with, and follow, department guidelines and requirements for approvable nutrient management plans.
This proposed rule will result in an increased demand for manure-haulers throughout the state. As part of implementing their nutrient management plans, many farmers will have to rely on commercial manure-haulers to apply their manure on appropriate fields. This industry should see increased revenue and business from many farmers.
Construction contractors
Statewide, the impact of this proposed rule on construction contractors will differ from what it has been in the past. There will be no different professional skills required and no increase in reporting and record-keeping requirements. The main impact of this proposed rule on contractors will be the redistribution of projects across the state. This may not affect large contractors who are more mobile and can set up branch offices, but smaller, less mobile operations may see a negative impact.
Instead of having project concentrated in a relatively few priority areas in the state, under the new program each county will receive some funds for projects. This will result in projects being more evenly distributed across the state. This will benefit those contractors which are more mobile than those which are not. After about a one or two year period of adjustment, this change on the industry will likely stabilize.
Environmental Assessment
The department has prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for this administrative rule. The assessment finds that the proposed repeal and recreation of chapter ATCP 50 would have no significant adverse environmental impact and is not a major state action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. It is expected that the proposed rule will have a positive impact on protecting soil resources and improving and protecting water quality. Alternatives to this proposed rule, discussed in the assessment, will not reach program goals as effectively as the proposed rule. No environmental impact statement is necessary under S.
1.11 (2), Stats.
You may obtain a free copy of the environmental assessment by contacting Bonnie Shebelski at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Resources, 2811 Agricultural Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8911, telephone: 608/224-4620. Copies will also be available at the hearings.
Notice of Hearing
Pharmacy Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Pharmacy Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) and
450.02 (2) and
(3), Stats., and interpreting ss.
450.01 (7) and
(16),
450.02 (2) and
(3) and
450.09, Stats., the Pharmacy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create s.
Phar 7.12, relating to the requirements for an approved central fill system.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: September 11, 2001
Time: 9:15 A.M.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 179A
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by September 25, 2001 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
The objective of this proposed rule is to specify the requirements for an approved central fill system. Integrated health systems, business entities comprising common ownership of multiple pharmacies and pharmacies desiring to enter contractual relationships with outside vendors have an interest in increasing patient convenience and lowering cost of service based upon the central filling of prescription orders for dispensing. The intent of such rules is to preserve the integrity of the dispensing process by addressing the issues of ownership of inventory, patient confidentiality, consultation, security, accuracy and accountability which must be maintained in any approved central fill system.
A “central fill pharmacy" is defined as a pharmacy licensed in this state acting as an agent of an originating pharmacy to fill or refill a prescription order. The “originating pharmacy" is a pharmacy licensed in this state that uses a central fill pharmacy to fill or refill a prescription order for purposes of dispensing by the originating pharmacy.
The central fill pharmacy and originating pharmacy may only process a request for the filling or refilling of a prescription received by an originating pharmacy when the requirements of this section are met. The central fill pharmacy must either have the same owner as the originating pharmacy or a contract with the originating pharmacy outlining the services, responsibilities and accountabilities of each pharmacy. Also, both pharmacies must maintain a written protocol delineating each pharmacy's assumption of responsibility for compliance with the prescription drug compounding and dispensing requirements of chs.
Phar 7 and
8. The proposed rule provides that the originating pharmacy shall still remain responsible for compliance with the prescription drug compounding and dispensing requirements of chs.
Phar 7 and
8 which are not assumed in writing by the central fill pharmacy pursuant to a filling protocol. The originating pharmacy will always remain solely responsible for the patient consultation and transfer requirements of s.
Phar 7.01 (1) (e) and
(em) where the prescription drug is not delivered by an agent of the pharmacist to a patient's residence. Certain functions in the dispensing process may not be performed by the central fill pharmacy unless it shares a common central processing unit with the originating pharmacy. These functions are the medication profile record review of the patient, drug utilization review, claims adjudication, refill authorizations, interventions, drug interactions and selection of drug product equivalents. The originating pharmacy remains responsible for original recordkeeping of all prescription orders as required by state and federal law. All original and refill requests received by the central fill pharmacy are required to be treated as prescription orders for purposes of filing and recordkeeping as required by state and federal law. Each pharmacy is required to maintain duplicate records to identify each pharmacist responsible for receiving and reviewing prescription orders and compounding and dispensing pursuant to a prescription order and to track the prescription order during each step in the dispensing process. Both pharmacies are required to adopt a joint written quality assurance program to monitor and evaluate the quality and appropriateness of patient care, pursue opportunities to improve patient care, resolve identified problems and insure compliance with this section. The label of any prescription drug container dispensed is also required to contain an additional label encoding either electronically or in printed form the name and address of the central fill pharmacy, the name of the pharmacist who filled the prescription order, and the date of filling.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Phar 7.12 is created to read:
Phar 7.12 Central fill pharmacy. (1) As used in this section, “central fill pharmacy" means a pharmacy licensed in this state acting as an agent of an originating pharmacy to fill or refill a prescription.
(2) As used in this section, “originating pharmacy" means a pharmacy licensed in this state that uses a central fill pharmacy to fill or refill a prescription order.
(3) A central fill pharmacy and originating pharmacy may process a request for the filling or refilling of a prescription received by an originating pharmacy only pursuant to the following requirements:
(a) The central fill pharmacy either has the same owner as the originating pharmacy or has a contract with the originating pharmacy outlining the services to be provided and the responsibilities and accountabilities of each pharmacy in fulfilling the terms of the contract in compliance with federal and state law.
(b) The central fill pharmacy and originating pharmacy maintain a written filling protocol delineating each pharmacy's assumption of responsibility for compliance with the prescription drug compounding and dispensing requirements of chs.
Phar 7 and
8.
(c) The originating pharmacy shall remain responsible for compliance with the prescription drug compounding and dispensing requirements of ch.
Phar 7 and which are not assumed in writing by the central fill pharmacy pursuant to such protocol.
(d) The central fill pharmacy shall not assume and the originating pharmacy shall at all times remain solely responsible to perform and comply with the requirements of s.
Phar 7.01 (1) (e) and
(em) in instances where the prescription is not delivered by an agent of the pharmacist to a patient's residence.
(e) Unless the central fill pharmacy shares a common central processing unit with the originating pharmacy it may not perform processing functions such as, the medication profile record review of the patient, drug utilization review, claims adjudication, refill authorizations, interventions, drug interactions and selection of drug product equivalents.
(f) The originating pharmacy shall maintain the original of all prescription orders received for purposes of filing and recordkeeping as required by state and federal law.
(g) The central fill pharmacy shall maintain all original fill and refill requests received from the originating pharmacy and shall treat them as original and refill prescription orders for purposes of filing and recordkeeping as required by state and federal law.
(h) In addition to meeting the other recordkeeping requirements required by state and federal law, the central fill pharmacy and originating pharmacy shall maintain duplicate records to identify each pharmacist responsible for receiving and reviewing prescription orders and compounding and dispensing pursuant to a prescription order and track the prescription order during each step in the dispensing process.
(i) The central fill pharmacy and originating pharmacy shall adopt a written quality assurance program for pharmacy services designed to objectively and systematically monitor and evaluate the quality and appropriateness of patient care, pursue opportunities to improve patient care, resolve identified problems and insure compliance with this section.
(j) In addition to meeting the requirements of s.
450.11 (4), Stats., every container of a prescription drug dispensed pursuant to this section shall contain an additional label encoding either electronically or in printed form the name and address of the central fill pharmacy, the name of the pharmacist who filled the prescription order, and the date of filling.
Fiscal Estimate
1. The anticipated fiscal effect on the fiscal liability and revenues of any local unit of government of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
2. The projected anticipated state fiscal effect during the current biennium of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
3. The projected net annualized fiscal impact on state funds of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These proposed rules will be reviewed by the department through its Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether there will be an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Copies of this proposed rule are available without cost upon request to: Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (608) 266-0495.
Notice of Hearing
Pharmacy Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Pharmacy Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2),
450.02 (3) (e),
450.03 (2) and
450.04 (1), Stats and interpreting ss.
450.04 and
450.05, Stats., the Pharmacy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend s.
Phar 2.01 (1) and
2.04 (1), relating to examinations for original licensure and for persons licensed in another state.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: September 11, 2001
Time: 9:15 A.M.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 179A
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing:
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by September 25, 2001 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
The objective of this proposed rule-making order is to create consistent licensure requirements with other states that require applicants in certain instances to take and pass the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination (FPGEE), the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and the Test of Spoken English (TSE).
Currently, Wisconsin law only requires that an applicant who is a foreign graduate of a school of pharmacy to take and pass the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination (FPGEE), offered by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC). Other states require a foreign graduate of a school of pharmacy to take and pass three examinations, the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination (FPGEE), the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), and the Test of Spoken English (TSE). Upon successfully taking and passing all three examinations the foreign graduate earns FPGEC Certification. Requiring foreign graduate applicants in Wisconsin to earn FPGEC Certification as a precondition for licensure will allow Wisconsin licensure requirements in this instance to be considered “substantially equivalent" with other states, thus allowing greater mobility for pharmacists with Wisconsin licensure who thereafter seek licensure in other states.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Phar 2.01 (1) is amended to read:
Phar 2.01 (1) Has been graduated from a school or college of pharmacy approved by the board or has taken and passed the foreign pharmacy graduate equivalency examination given obtained certification by the foreign pharmacy graduate examination commission committee.
SECTION 2. Phar 2.04 (1) is amended to read:
