Rule-making notices
Notice of Proposed Rule
Elections Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
5.05 (1) (f) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting ss.11.06 (1) and (5), 11.22 (2) (c) and 11.23 (3), and 11.24 (2), Stats., and according to the procedure set forth in s.227.16 (2) (e), Stats., the State of Wisconsin Elections Board will adopt the following rules as proposed in this notice without public hearing unless within 30 days after publication of this notice,
July 1, 2005, the Elections Board is petitioned for a public hearing by 25 persons who will be affected by the rule; by a municipality which will be affected by the rule; or by an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business, or professional group which will be affected by the rule.
Analysis Prepared by State Elections Board
Section
11.06 (5), Stats., requires that “A registered individual or treasurer of a group or committee shall make a good faith effort to obtain all required information" on each campaign finance report. The rule prescribes the standard for what constitutes a “good faith effort to obtain all required information" under the statute, and prescribes the consequences for a registrant's acceptance of a contribution for which the registrant has not “obtained all required information," under the statute. To constitute “good faith" compliance, a registrant has 60 days (from the due date of the report) in which to obtain all required information, or return any contribution for which that information has not been obtained. The failure to provide the required information or return the contribution within the 60 day period constitutes a violation of s.
11.06 (1), Stats., subjecting the registrant to a possible forfeiture and a requirement to return any such contribution in excess of $250.
SECTION 1. ElBd 1.46 (3) is created to read:
(3) (a) A registrant who files a campaign finance report which does not disclose all of the contributor information required by s.11.06 (1) (a) or (b), Stats., shall, not later than 60 days after the due date for that report, notify the filing officer of all the information required for each contribution included on that report. A registrant who provides the required information or who returns the contribution to the contributor, within 60 days of the due date for the report, shall be considered to have made good faith compliance under s.11.06 (5), Stats. and shall not be considered to have violated s.11.06 (1), Stats. A registrant who does not provide the required information and does not return the contribution, within 60 days of the due date for the report shall be considered to have failed to show good faith compliance under s.11.06 (5), Stats., and shall be considered to have violated s.11.06 (1), Stats., and shall be required to divest itself of any such contribution or contributions in excess of $250.
(b) Divestiture of an unacceptable contribution under this section shall consist of returning the contribution to the contributor, or paying the amount of the contribution to the Common School Fund or to any other bona fide charity.
(c) The divestiture of the contribution after 60 days from the due date of the report shall not preclude the Board's imposition of any civil penalties under s.11.60, Stats., if the egregious nature of the circumstances warrant prosecution.
(d) The committee's disposition of the illegal contribution shall be reported on its next succeeding campaign finance report.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The creation of this rule does not affect business.
Fiscal Estimate
The creation of this rule has no fiscal effect.
Contact Person
George A. Dunst, Legal Counsel
State Elections Board
132 E. Wilson Street
P.O. Box 2973
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2973
Phone 266-0136
Notice of Hearings
Health and Family Services
(Medical Assistance, Chs.
100-]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.45 (2) (a) 11. b., and
(10) and
227.11 (2), Stats., interpreting ss.
49.45 (2) (a) 11. a., and
(10),
49.46 (2) (a) 2., and
(b) 1., Stats., the Department of Health and Family Services will hold public hearings to consider the repeal of s.
HFS 107.07 (2) (c); the renumbering of s.
HFS 105.06; the amendment of ss.
HFS 105.01 (5) (a) 1.,
105.06 (title),
107.07 (2) (a) (intro.) 1. to
4. and
(b); the repeal and recreation of s.
HFS 107.07 (1),
(3) and
(4); and the creation of ss.
HFS 105.06 (1) (title) and
(2),
107.07 (1m),
(2) (a) 5. to
8. and
(4m), relating to coverage of dental services under the Medical Assistance program, and affecting small businesses.
Hearing Information
The public hearings will be held:
Wednesday, July 13, 2005, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
1300 W. Clairemont Ave., Rooms 158/185
Eau Claire, WI
Thursday, July 14, 2005, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
1 West Wilson Street, Room B-145
Madison, WI
Friday, July 15, 2005, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
141 NW Barstow, Room 15
Waukesha, WI
Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
2894 Shawano Ave.
Lake Michigan Community Conference Room
Green Bay, WI
The hearing sites are fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you are hearing or visually impaired, do not speak English, or have circumstances that might make communication at a hearing difficult and if you, therefore, require an interpreter or a non-English, large print or taped version of the hearing document, contact the person at the address or phone number given above at least 10 days before the hearing. With less than 10 days notice, an interpreter may not be available.
Written comments may be submitted at the public hearing, or in lieu of attending a public hearing written comments can be submitted by regular mail or email to the contact person listed below. Written comments may also be submitted to the Department using the Wisconsin Administrative Rules Internet website at the web address listed below.
Deadline for Comment Submission
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:30 p.m., on Friday, July 29, 2005.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Health and Family Services
The proposed order revises the Department's rules for coverage of dental services by the MA program to update dental terminology, accommodate the current national dental procedure codeset, improve the organization of s.
HFS 107.07, substantially reduce the number of services requiring prior authorization, and change the coverage status of several services, including for sealants, and alveoplasty and osteoplasty (2 types of oral surgery).
The removal of alveoplasty and osteoplasty from the non-covered services category to the category of services covered with prior authorization will permit reimbursement of dentists for these services. Currently, only physicians are allowed reimbursement for these surgeries.
In addition, the proposed order revises ss.
HFS 105.01 (5) and
(6), to allow for the individual certification of dental hygienists and describes services that may be reimbursed by Medicaid when provided by Medicaid certified dental hygienists.
Effect on Small Business (Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)
The proposed rules will affect dental hygienists who perform services as independent contractors, and dentists. The Department believes that the proposed rules will have a positive effect on dental hygienists performing services as independent contractors, and dentists. Dental hygienists will enjoy increased opportunities to independently contract their services. Dentists will experience a reduction in paperwork and administrative staff time associated with participation in Wisconsin Medicaid and BadgerCare. The proposed rules do not impose reporting requirements or schedules.
Fiscal Estimate
The Department does not anticipate that the proposed rules will affect local government or private sector costs. The Department does, however, anticipate that the proposed rules will increase costs to the Department. The GPR share of increased costs was calculated at the SFY 2004 blended rate of 36.4%, and based on the following assumptions that have been updated since April 14, 2005, when the original fiscal estimate was submitted, with proposed rules, to the Legislative Council Clearinghouse. The updated fiscal estimate is attached to this notice of hearing.
Assumptions used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate
Certifying Dental Hygienists as MA Providers
(1)
10 hygienists employed by local health departments, or other allowable practice settings, would certify as Medicaid providers in first year of biennium; 10 additional would begin in second year. (Some additional hygienists currently billing under HealthCheck nursing agency provider numbers could shift to individual certification, but this shift would have no net fiscal effect.)
(2)
Hygienists would treat an average of 16 MA enrolled children per month and 10 MA enrolled adults per month.
(3)
Hygienists would provide an average of 1 evaluation, 2 fluorides, and 4 sealants per MA-enrolled child per year, and an average of 1 evaluation, 4 cleanings, and 4 fluorides per MA-enrolled adult per year.
Revising Prior Authorization for Dental MA Program
(1)
Services where PA was denied, or returned and not resubmitted (estimated to be 50% of returned details) under old rules would be paid under new rules.
(2)
Quantity of services requested on denied or returned and not resubmitted requests is equal to the weighted average of quantity of services requested on approved requests. Services that are requested for multiple years are performed at the maximum allowable number of times per year.
(3)
This estimate does not assume an increase in the number of Medicaid-certified dentists due to the rule change. However, to the extent that this rule change increases the number of dentists participating in Medicaid, the cost of the change would increase.
Long Range Fiscal Implications
Dental Hygienists
(1)
Increased cost of approximately $938,000 AF ($341,000 GPR) in the 2005-2007 biennium, assuming a March 2006 effective date.
(2)
Long-term costs may decline as future disease burden declines due to increased provision of early preventive treatment.
Prior Authorization
(1) Increased cost of approximately $460,000 AF ($168,000 GPR) in the 2005-2007 biennium, assuming a March 2006 effective date.
For More Information
A copy of the full text of the rules and the updated fiscal estimate, and other documents associated with this rulemaking may be obtained, at no charge, from the Wisconsin Administrative Rules website at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. At this website you can also register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking and, during the public comment period, you can submit comments on the rulemaking order electronically and view comments that others have submitted about the rule.
A copy of the full text of the rule and the updated fiscal estimate may also be obtained by contacting the Department's representative listed below:
Andrew Snyder, Dental Policy Analyst
Division of Health Care Financing
Bureau of Fee-for-Service Health Care Benefits
1 West Wilson Street
P.O. Box 309
Madison, WI 53701-0309
(608) 266-9749
snydea@dhfs.state.wi.us
Small Business Regulatory Coordinator:
Rosie Greer
608-266-1279
Notice of Hearing
Insurance
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority granted under s.
601.41 (3), Stats., and the procedures set forth in under s.
227.18, Stats., OCI will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the attached proposed rulemaking order affecting ch.
Ins 9, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to defined network and preferred provider plans and may affect small businesses.
Date: July 27, 2005
Time: 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached
Place: OCI, Room 227, 125 South Webster St 2nd Floor, Madison, WI
Written comments or comments submitted through the Wisconsin Administrative Rule website at:
https://adminrules.wisconsin.gov on the proposed rule will be considered. The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 14
th day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.
Written comments should be sent to:
Julie E. Walsh
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 9
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI)
3. Explanation of the OCI's authority to promulgate the proposed rule under these statutes: The Commissioner of Insurance is authorized to promulgate rules under s.
601.41 and
609.20, Stats. Section
609.20, Stats., permits the Commissioner to promulgate rules relating to preferred provider plans and defined network plans in order to ensure enrollee access to health care services and ensure continuity of health care while recognizing the differences between preferred provider plans and defined network plans.
4. Related Statutes or rules: There are no related statutes or rules.
5. The plain language analysis and summary of the proposed rule: Many of the proposed revisions to sections within s.
Ins 3.67, ch.
Ins 9 and s. Ins 18 are due to a change in terminology. The term “managed care plan" has been replaced with “defined network plan" in Ch.
609, Stats., established by
2001 Wisconsin Act 16, therefore, necessitating change within the insurance administrative code. In addition many revisions have been made to Ch.
Ins 9 to reflect the changes enacted by
2001 Wisconsin Act 16 including modifications reflecting the unique nature of preferred provider plans and changes in the market place since 2001 including regulatory changes that enhance consumer protection enacted by surrounding states.
Finally, the proposed rule reflects numerous modifications arising from a cooperative effort of the Commissioner and representatives from the insurance industry. Since November 2004, four public working meetings have been held to discuss each section of the proposed rule. Each public meeting was attended by the Commissioner and his staff and representatives from the Wisconsin Association of Life and Health Insurers (WALHI), Council for Affordable Healthcare and Wisconsin Association of Provider Networks (WAPN) as well as representatives from no less than seven (7) domestic and non-domestic health insurers. Additional work groups comprised of representatives from industry and the Office met two additional times to work on the ancillary provider language and criteria for preferred provider plans. Participants at the open meetings were invited to comment and make recommendations or specific modifications to the proposed rule. Candid discussion provided both the Commissioner and the industry opportunity to voice support or concerns over each section of the rule. The public working meetings also gave both industry and the Commissioner the opportunity to share its respective views of the marketplace. Discussion often focused on how proposed and revised language affects the industry and its ability to function in the marketplace with the guiding statutory requirements and consumer concerns as reflected in complaints received by the OCI to maintain the proper balance in the proposed regulations. At each meeting revisions that had previously been discussed were reviewed, comment invited with extensive dialogue from both industry and OCI. At the end of the last working public meeting held May 9, 2005, the Commissioner invited written comment on the entire proposed rule. The comment period was intended to provide industry with time to reflect on the proposed rule and offer specific thoughtful revisions or recommendations and then permit the Commissioner time to review the suggested revisions and recommendations prior to issuing the Notice of Hearing for the rule. The culmination of those meeting, including written comments received throughout the last year, is reflected in this proposed rule.
The proposed rule defines preferred provider plans starting with the definition at s.
609.01, Wis. Stats., and clarifies and interprets the statutory requirements. Insurers offering preferred provider plans cannot require a referral to obtain coverage for care from either a participating or nonparticipating provider. If the preferred provider uses utilization management, including preauthorization or similar methods, for denying access to or coverage of the services of nonparticipating providers without just cause and with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, such methods shall result in the plan being treated by the Commissioner as a defined network plan and subject to all requirements of a defined network plan. The Commissioner recognizes that the utilization management and preauthorization as appropriate tools for controlling costs of the insurer and may protect enrollees from incurring additional costs for care. Therefore the proposed rule does not prohibit or limit the proper use of utilization management or preauthorization. OCI will, however, track insurers' use of these tools through complaints and market conduct examination to determine if the insurer has developed a pattern, without just cause, for denying coverage. If such a pattern is uncovered then the insurer would be subject to regulation as a defined network plan.
The proposed rule reflects the amendments within Ch.
609, Stats., by delineating unique reporting and other regulatory requirements between insurers that offer preferred provider plans versus other types of defined network plans. Significant provisions that demonstrate the unique regulatory treatment between defined network and preferred provider plans include: defined network plans are required to have quality assurance plans containing standards relating to access to care and continuity and quality of care while preferred provider plans are required to conduct remedial action plans and to develop procedures for remedial action to address quality problems; defined network plans must notify affected enrollees upon the termination of the provider from the plan and preferred providers may contract with another entity or providers to notify the enrollees of the termination, although the preferred provider does remain ultimately responsible for ensuring notifications are sent; defined network plans must report data similar to HEDIS for consumer information and preferred provider plans do not; both defined network plans and preferred provider plans are required to have sufficient number and type of providers within the network to adequately deliver all covered services, however, defined network plans must comply with all access standards while preferred provider plans need to have at least one participating primary care provider and one participating provider that has an expertise in obstetrics and gynecology that is accepting patients but the preferred provider plan need not offer a choice of participating providers.
In order for preferred provider plans to be regulated under the less rigorous regulatory requirements, the preferred provider plan must comply with the proposed regulatory requirements. Preferred provider plans must provide covered benefits without requiring the enrollee to obtain a referral or directing provider selection through the use of incentives including financial. The Commissioner recognizes that certain covered services may appropriately be best provided through contracted providers, for example the use of “Centers of Excellence" for transplants or cancer treatment. Further the mandated benefit for immunizations requires the insurer to offer as a covered benefit immunizations but the insurer need only cover the benefit when the immunization is given by a participating provider. Finally, some insurers offer services beyond the mandated limits as covered benefits with a greater disparity in coverage and may limit the expanded benefits to services received from participating providers. Therefore, the proposed rule creates a narrow exception to permit specific, limited services to be covered by participating providers with a greater disparity in coverage than when the services are provided by nonparticipating providers including the possibility of coverage only when the services are performed by a participating provider (i.e. immunizations).
As recognized by both the industry and by the Commissioner, deductibles and coinsurance are appropriate tools to steer enrollees towards participating providers. Although an appropriate tool, the differences between the deductible and coinsurance that an enrollee is required to pay when services are performed by a participating provider as compared nonparticipating providers should only be enough to create the incentive to utilize preferred providers. The Commissioner over the past year has received and reviewed numerous comments on where the line should be drawn to create the proper balance between the insurers desire to steer enrollees towards participating providers yet not so great that as a result enrollees are exposed to potentially significant financial penalties.
Therefore, the proposed rule requires the insurers offering preferred provider plans that desire to be subject only to the lesser regulatory requirements of preferred provider plans to comply with the following: coverage of the same benefits, unless specifically excepted, with the insurer paying not less than 60% coinsurance and the enrollee paying not more than 40% coinsurance for services performed by a nonparticipating provider. As an alternate, the insurer may pay not less than 50% coinsurance and the enrollee pay not more than 50% coinsurance for the services performed by a nonparticipating provider when the insurer provides the enrollee with a disclosure of limited coverage. Failure of the insurer to offer 60% coinsurance coverage without a disclosure notice or 50% coinsurance coverage with the disclosure notice will result in the insurer being treated as a defined network plan and not eligible for the lesser regulatory standards.
Additionally, the insurer offering a preferred provider plan that applies a coinsurance percentage when services are performed by nonparticipating providers at a different percentage than the coinsurance percentage that is applied when the services are performed by participating providers shall have the difference be no greater than 30%. If the percent difference is greater than 30% the insurer is required to provide the enrollee with a disclosure notice. If an insurer offering a preferred provider plan applies a deductible that is different for participating providers than for nonparticipating providers, the deductible for the same services when performed by a nonparticipating provider must be no more than 2 times greater or no more than $2000 more than the deductible that is applied when performed by a participating provider. If the insurer applies a deductible for services performed by a nonparticipating provider that is greater than 2 times or is more than $2000 different than the deductible that is applied when performed by participating providers, the insurer is required to provide the enrollee with a disclosure notice. The disclosure notice that is required to be given is contained within the rule and is similar to the notice provided in the state of Illinois.
A preferred provider plan must apply material exclusions, maximum limits or conditions to services regardless if the services are performed by either participating or nonparticipating providers and offers or uses no other incentives than the financial incentives of coinsurance and deductibles described above to encourage its enrollees to use participating providers. The exception to this requirement is for the steering of enrollees to Centers of Excellence for transplants and specified disease treatment services and immunizations pursuant to s.
632.895 (14), Stats., when insurer comply with disclosure requirements at the time the product is marketed, purchased and within the policy form in a prominent location.
Preferred provider plans shall include within the participating provider contracts a provision requiring the participating provider that schedules an elective procedure or other scheduled non-emergent care to fully disclose to the enrollee at the time of scheduling the name of each provider that will or may participate in the delivery of care and whether each provider is a participating or nonparticipating provider. The insurer shall include a disclosure, in a form consistent with the language contained in Appendix D, which informs enrollees of potential financial implications of using nonparticipating providers and to encourage the enrollee to contact the insurer for assistance in locating an appropriate participating provider. The intent of this requirement is to address the frequent complaint from Wisconsin consumers alleging that although the enrollee sought care from a participating surgeon at a participating hospital, the ancillary providers including anesthesiology or other specialist was nonparticipating and as a result the enrollee incurred large, unexpected medical bills. It is expected that with additional information in advance of the needed service, enrollees will be able to work with insurers and providers to make the best informed medical and financial decisions.
Preferred provider plans are not required to have a quality assurance program and are instead subject to remedial action plans as mentioned earlier. The remedial action plan requires the insurer offering the preferred provider plan to develop procedures for taking effective and timely remedial actions to address issues arising from access to and continuity of care. The proposed rule requires the remedial action plan to contain at least all of the following: designation of a senior-level staff person responsible for oversight of the plan, a written plan for the oversight of any function that is delegated to other contracted entities, a procedure for periodic review of the insurer's performance or the performance of a contracted entity, periodic and regular review of grievances, complaints and OCI complaints, a written plan for maintaining the confidentiality of protected information, documentation of timely correction of access to and continuity of care issues identified in the plan to include the date the insurer was aware of the issue, the type of issue, the person responsible for the development and management of the plan, the remedial action plan utilized in each situation, the outcome of the action plan, and the established time frame for reevaluation of the issue to ensure resolution and compliance with the remedial action plan
Emergency medical care treatment coverage was identified by the Commissioner as another specific type of service for which the Office frequently receives complaints from Wisconsin consumers. This form of regulation is found in the surrounding states and is most similar to the regulation in Iowa. To further clarify the prudent person mandate for coverage of emergency medical care, the proposed rule contains requirements for both insurers offering defined network plans and preferred provider plans that provide emergency medical care treatment as a covered benefit. These insurers shall provide that treatment as though the provider was a participating provider when the enrollee cannot reasonably reach a preferred provider or is admitted for inpatient care even if the care is provided by a nonparticipating provider. The plans must reimburse the provider at the nonparticipating provider rate and apply any deductibles, coinsurance or other costsharing provisions, if applicable, at the participating provider rate.
Defined network plans and preferred provider plans are both required to annually certify compliance with applicable access standards. Defined network plans and preferred providers plans must both provide covered benefits by plan providers with reasonable promptness with respect to geographic location, hours of operation waiting times for appointments in provider offices and after hour's care reflecting the usual practice in the local area with geographic availability reflecting the usual medical travel times within the community. This requirement is not new and does not require insurers to mandate to participating providers the provider's hours of operation. Rather when the insurer is required to reply to the Office, the insurer must demonstrate that the hours of operation waiting time for appointments and after hours care of the participating providers is reasonable based upon the geographic location and usual medical travel times within that community.
The Commissioner finds that the circumstances of insurers offering group or blanket health insurance policy require that the insurer offering the policy otherwise exempt from Chs.
600 to
646, Stats., under s.
600.01 (1) (b) 3., Stats., in order to provide adequate protection to Wisconsin enrollees and the public those insurers shall comply with s.
Ins 9.34 (2) and s.
609.22 (2), Stats., when it covers 100 or more residents of this state under a policy that is otherwise exempt under s.
600.01 (1) (b) 3., Stats.
Finally, the proposed rule includes several new definitions of terms that were requested by the industry to assist in clarifying relationships between insurers and providers and to clarify what entities are subject to specific requirements.
The proposed rule would be enforced under ss.
601.41,
601.64,
601.65, Stats., or ch.
645, Stats., or any other enforcement provision of chs.
600 to
646, Stats. This proposed rule includes a significantly delayed applicability date to give insurers amply time to comply with the various provisions including sufficient time to submit to the OCI forms for approval prior to use.
6. Summary of and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the issues presented within the proposed rule. There is federal regulation for issuers of Medicare Advantage, a means of delivering Medicare Part A and B benefits through preferred provider organizations, formally known as Medicare + Choice. States are preempted from regulating issuers of Medicare Advantage, however the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid did provide regulations that included access requirements which are similar to the requirements incorporated in the OCI proposed rule
7. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states as found by OCI:
Iowa: Iowa statute §514C.16, requires a carrier which provides coverage for emergency services to be responsible for charges for emergency services furnished outside any contractual provider network or preferred provider network for covered individuals. Iowa Administrative Code s. 191-27.4 (1)(a), requires a health benefit plan which provides for incentives for covered persons to use the health care services of a preferred provider to contain a provision that if a covered person receives emergency services specified in the preferred provider arrangement and cannot reasonably reach a preferred provider, emergency services rendered during the course of the emergency will be reimbursed as though the covered person had been treated by a preferred provider, subject to any restrictions which may govern payment by a preferred provider for emergency services. Iowa statute §514B and Administrative Code 191-40.21, require HMOs to reimburse a provider of emergency services after a review of the care and may not deny reimbursement solely on the grounds that the services were provided by non-contracted providers.
Iowa statute §514F.3 requires the commissioner of insurance to adopt rules for preferred provider contracts and organizations and to adopt rules related to preferred provider arrangements. Iowa statute §514K.1 requires HMOs, organized delivery systems or an insurer using a preferred provider arrangement to provide to its enrollees written information that at a minimum must include the following; a description of the plan's benefits and exclusions, enrollee cost-sharing requirements, list of participating providers, disclosure of drug formularies, explanation for accessing emergency care services, policy for addressing investigational or experimental treatments, methodologies used to compensate providers, performance measures as determined by the commissioner and information on how to access internal and external grievance procedures. In addition the Iowa department must annually publish a consumer guide providing a comparison by plan on performance measures, network composition, and other key information to enable consumers to better understand plan differences.
Iowa Administrative Code 191-27.3 (1), requires preferred provider arrangements to establish the amount and manner of payment to a preferred provider, the mechanisms designed to minimize cost of the health benefits plan and ensure reasonable access to covered services under the preferred provider arrangement. Iowa Administrative Code 191-27.4 (1) (b), requires preferred provider plans to contain a provision that clearly identifies the differentials in benefit levels for health care services of preferred providers and non-preferred providers. Iowa Administrative Code 191-27.4 (2), requires that if a health benefit plan provides difference in benefit levels payable to preferred providers compared to other providers, such difference shall not unfairly deny payment for covered services and shall be no greater than necessary to provide a reasonable incentive for covered persons to use the preferred provider.
Illinois: Illinois statutory code 215 ILCS 5/370o, requires any preferred provider contract to provide the enrollee emergency care coverage regardless of whether the emergency care is provided by a preferred or non-preferred provider and the coverage shall be at the same benefit level as if the service or treatment had been rendered by a plan provider. Section 215 ILCS 5/370i, sec. (a) prohibits policies from containing provisions that would unreasonably restrict the access and availability of health care services for the enrollee. Section 215 ILCS 134/40, sec. 40 (d) requires health care plan to pay for services of a specialist with the enrollee only responsible for the services as though the services were provided by an in-network provider when the plan does not have the specialist that the enrollee needs for the care of an on-going specific condition. The primary care physician arranges for the enrollee to see a specialist that is within a reasonable distance and travel time and the primary provider notifies the plan of the referral.
The information required to be provided to consumers are contained in s. 215 ILCS 134/15, that requires annual reporting of participating health care providers in the plan's service area and in addition to basic terms of the plan, includes disclosure of out-of-area coverage, if any, financial responsibility of enrollees including co-payments, deductibles, premium and any other out-of-pocket expenses, continuity of care, appeal rights and mandated benefits. Illinois Administrative Code s. 5420.40, requires disclosure so that a person can compare the attributes of various health care plans based upon a description of coverage. This disclosure includes that 2 appendices are completed that detail specific copayments, deductibles, and other cost-sharing provisions for services that must be included with the policy for consumer information.
In addition to the worksheets that provide consumers with detailed information, Illinois statutory code s. 215ILCS 5/356z.2, also requires an insurer that issues or renews a individual or group accident and health policy and arranges, contracts with or administers contracts with providers whereby the beneficiary are provided an incentive to use the services of such provider must include the following disclosure of limited benefits in its contracts and evidence of coverage:
WARNING, LIMITED BENEFITS WILL BE PAID WHEN NON-PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS ARE USED. You should be aware that when you elect to utilize the services of a non-participating provider for a covered service in non-emergency situations, benefit payments to such non-participating provider are not based upon the amount billed. The basis of your benefit payment will be determined according to your policy's fee schedule, usual and customary charge (which is determined by comparing charges for similar services adjusted to the geographical are where the services are performed), or other method as defined by the policy. YOU CAN EXPECT TO PAY MORE THAN THE COINSURANCE AMOUNT DEFINED IN THE POLICY AFTER THE PLAN HAS PAID ITS REQUIRED PORTION. Non-participating providers may bill members for any amount up to the billed charge after the plan has paid its portion of the bill. Participating providers have agreed to accept discounted payment for services with no additional billing to the member other than co-insurance and deductible amounts. You may obtain further information about the participating status of professional providers and information on out-of-pocket expenses by calling the toll free telephone number on your identification card. (Emphasis in original.)
Illinois statute s. 215 ILCS 134/80 requires health care plans have procedures for quality assessment program including in s. (3) and (4) that require plans have a procedure for remedial action to correct quality problems that have been verified in accordance with the written plan's methodology and criteria, including written procedures for taking appropriate corrective action and follow-up measures implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the action plan.
Illinois Administrative Code s. 5420.50 requires that all provider agreements contain provisions providing for advance notice from providers when terminating from the plan and requirements that the plan notify affected enrollees on a timely basis. The notice provided to the enrollee must contain information on how enrollees are to select a new health care provider.
Minnesota: Minnesota statute s. 62A.049, prohibits an accident and sickness policy from requiring prior authorization in cases of emergency confinement or emergency treatment. The enrollee or authorized representative must notify the insurer as soon as reasonably possible. Section 62Q.55 requires managed care organizations including preferred provider organization, to provide enrollees with available and accessible emergency services. Services shall be covered whether provided by participating or nonparticipating providers and whether provided within or outside the health plan's service area. Section 62D.20 and s. 4685.0700, Minnesota Administrative Code, require HMOs to provide out-of-area services including for emergency care.
Minnesota statute s. 62Q.49 (subd. 2) (a), requires all health plans to clearly specify how the cost of health care used to calculate any co-payments, coinsurance or lifetime benefits will be affected by the contracting in which health care providers agree to accept discounted charges. Section 62Q.49, further any marketing or summary materials must prominently disclose and clearly explain the provisions relating to co-payments, coinsurance or maximum lifetime benefits.
Minnesota statute s. 62Q.58, requires that if an enrollee receives services from a nonparticipating specialist because a participating specialist is not available, the services must be provided at no additional cost to the enrollee beyond what the enrollee would otherwise pay for services received from a participating specialist.
Minnesota statute s. 62Q.746, permits the department to request and the health plan to provide the following information including how the plan determines who are eligible to participating in the network, the number of full-time equivalent physicians, by specialty, non-physician providers and allied health providers used to provide services and summary data that is broken down by type of provider reflecting actual utilization of network and non-network practitioners and allied professionals by enrollees of the plan.
Michigan: Michigan statute s.
500.3406k, requires an expense-incurred hospital, medical or surgical policy that provides coverage for emergency health services, including an HMO plan, shall provide coverage for medically necessary services provide to an enrollee for the sudden onset of a medical condition that manifests itself by signs and symptoms of sufficient severity, that the absence of immediate care could reasonably be expected to result in serious jeopardy to health without prior authorization.
Insurers that contract with providers are governed by the Prudent Purchaser Act of 1984 including preferred provider organization (MCL 550.50 et seq.). The organization that contracts with providers shall annually report to the commissioner basic utilization of the providers (MCL 550.56). Under MCL 550.53, organizations that contract with providers to control costs and utilization may limit the number of providers to the number necessary to assure reasonable levels of access to health care services, located within reasonable distance.
8. A summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that OCI used in support of the proposed rule and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen for the proposed rule:
The rule as drafted by OCI is intended to ensure enrollee access to health care services, ensure continuity of health care and ensure that enrollees fully understand the products offered including deductibles, co-payment and other cost-sharing measures that when combined with premium payments will permit the enrollee to make better product selection and provider choices. The proposed rule achieves these goals while recognizing the differences between preferred provider plans and defined network plans. In addition to the statutory amendments necessitating the rule, the OCI identified several key consumer and regulatory issues through a review of complaints filed with the agency involving insurers offering preferred provider plans (PPOs) that the proposed rule addresses through required disclosures to enrollees, disclosure to the OCI, coverage of emergency services and adequate access to participating providers.
The complaint review involved complaints filed for the period January 1, 2003 through May 31, 2004. The OCI reviewed only complaints identified in the agency data system as group health coverage. The OCI identified 936 PPO complaints. These complaints involved claim administration (83%), marketing (2%), underwriting (9%), policyholder service (5%) and “other" complaints (1%).
The OCI found that 33 complaints involved ancillary providers. These complaints involve PPO plans that have participating provider contracts with hospitals but do not have contracts with the anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists and emergency medicine physicians associated with in-network hospitals. Enrollees either were not aware that the ancillary providers were non-participating providers or did not have an option but to use the non-participating providers due to location or medical necessity. The result to these enrollees was significant out-of-pocket expenses as some PPOs have 30% or more differential between participating and non-participating providers and may also have higher co-payments or other cost-sharing provisions when services are performed by non-participating providers.
During this same period of time, the OCI identified 15 complaints involving emergency services that were subject to non-participating deductibles and co-payments. Although some insurers waive the deductible and co-payments billed by nonparticipating providers for rendering emergency care services, many insurers leave enrollees financially responsible for significant, unexpected, medical expenses.
The OCI also identified 19 complaints that involved changes in the provider networks, 2 complaints involving limits in the available participating network, 18 involving the enrollee's lack of understanding of PPO plan requirements with 71 complaints grouped under the heading of “other" which includes UCR determinations, and pre-certification or pre-authorization issues.
In addition the complaint review, the OCI in a cooperative effort of the Commissioner met with representatives from the insurance industry. Since November 2004, four public working meetings have been held to discuss each section of the proposed rule. Each public meeting was attended by the Commissioner and his staff and representatives from the Wisconsin Association of Life and Health Insurer, Council for Affordable Healthcare and Wisconsin Association of Provider Networks as well as representatives from no less than seven (7) domestic and non-domestic health insurers. Additional work groups comprised of representative from industry and the Office met two additional times to work on the ancillary provider language and criteria for preferred provider plans. Participants in the open meetings were invited to comment and make recommendations or specific modifications to the proposed rule. Candid discussion provided both Commissioner and the industry opportunity to voice support or concerns over each section of the rule. The public working meetings also gave both industry and the Commissioner the opportunity to share its respective views of the marketplace. Discussion often focused on how proposed and revised language affects the industry and its ability to function in the marketplace with the guiding statutory requirements and consumer concerns as reflected in complaints received by the OCI to maintain the proper balance in the proposed regulations. At each meeting revisions that had previously been discussed were reviewed, comment invited with extensive dialogue from both industry and OCI. At the end of the last working public meeting held May 9, 2005, the Commissioner invited written comment on the entire proposed rule. The comment period was intended to provide industry with time to reflect on the proposed rule and offer specific thoughtful revisions or recommendations and then permit the Commissioner time to review the suggested revisions and recommendations prior to issuing the Notice of Hearing for the rule. The culmination of those meeting, including written comments received throughout the last year, is reflected in this proposed rule.
9. Any analysis and supporting documentation that OCI used in support of OCI's determination of the rule's effect on small businesses under s.
227.114:
This rule may have an effect on only one (1) regulated small business as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Wis. Stats., that is an LSHO and authorized to only write 10% of its premium as a preferred provider plan. OCI maintains a database of all licensed insurers in Wisconsin. Included with the information required to be submitted to OCI, the database includes information submitted by the companies related to premium revenue and employment. In an examination of this database, OCI identified only one insurer with annual premium volume of less than $5 million that would be affected by this proposed rule.
This one insurer would incur a one-time expense associated with filing new policy forms, modifying provider contracts and implementing remedial action plan procedures related to quality problems. It is possible that the one insurer might need to minimally modify its computer system to the extent necessary to incorporate emergency medical care rendered by nonparticipating providers. These one-time expenses are not considered to be of significant cost and therefore will not have a significant economic impact on the one insurer.
Further, the proposed rule has a delayed applicability date for new policies to January 1, 2007 and renewing policies to January 1, 2008. The significantly delayed applicability will allow the insurer to spread any cost that it may incur over time thus reducing any effect the rule might have on the one insurer. The delay will also give the insurer ample time to make necessary modifications to forms or contracts also minimizing any affect of the rule on the small business insurer.
10. If these changes may have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector, the anticipated costs that will be incurred by private sector in complying with the rule:
This rule is not expected to have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector regulated by OCI. The majority of insurers offering defined network plans, including health maintenance organizations and most preferred provider plans currently offer insurance coverage that complies with the minimum standards proposed in the amendments to ch.
Ins 9, Wis. Adm. Code. The proposed rule does not prohibit or require insurers offering preferred provider plans to redesign any existing plan. Insurers may continue selling and servicing policies that contain coinsurance, deductibles or other cost-sharing methods, however those plans may be required to include disclosure notices that will need to be filed with the Office prior to use. In addition insurers offering defined network, preferred provider plans will be required to submit to the OCI emergency medical care coverage language that is compliant with the regulation.
Insurers offering preferred provider plans will likely need to incur a one-time expense to modify existing contracts with participating providers through an addendum to comply with advance notice to enrollees regarding providers' plan status when elective procedures are scheduled. Additionally, the insurers may need to file updated forms and implement remedial action plans to address quality problems. It is possible that insurers might need to minimally modify existing computer systems for payment of emergency medical care services provided by nonparticipating providers.
Insurers may find a cost saving resulting from the rule through the receipt of fewer complaints from enrollees, employers and providers, and use fewer resources investigating and responding to complaints and grievances, and in preparing and documenting files for external review. Further, with significantly delayed applicability dates, insurers will have ample time to make necessary modifications including sufficient time to file any necessary form filings thereby reducing any possible effect of the proposed rule.
11. A description of the Effect on Small Business:
This rule may effect one small business regulated by the Office but should not have a significant economic impact . OCI identified one insurer that is an LSHO authorized to write no more than 10% of its premium from preferred provider business that had annual premium volume of less than $5 million, however the effect would not have a significant economic impact on that insurer for the reasons stated in above.
The insurer that may be affected by the proposed rule will incur a one-time expense related to the filing of compliant policy forms, modifying provider contracts and implementing a remedial action plan procedure related to quality problems. The proposed rule also includes a significantly delayed applicability date allowing the one insurer ample time for necessary modifications and to spread any associated costs over time thus limiting any effect the rule might have.
12. Agency contact person:
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the WEB sites at:
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm or by contacting Inger Williams, OCI Services Section, at:
Phone: (608) 264-8110
Address: 125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor Madison WI 53702
Mail: PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873
13. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 14th day after the date for the hearing stated in the Notice of Hearing.
Mailing address:
Julie E. Walsh
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule INS 9
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Street address:
Julie E. Walsh
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule INS 9
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Notice is hereby further given that pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an affect on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
a. Types of small businesses affected:
There is only one (1) regulated small business that may be affected by this rule that is a Limited Service Health Organization (LSHO) authorized to write no more than 10% of its premium from preferred provider plan business. The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on that one insurer as the one-time expense for filing updated forms, modifying provider contracts and implementing a procedure for remedial action plan related to quality problems are not considered significant. The one insurer might also need to minimally modify its computer system to incorporate coverage for emergency medical care from nonparticipating providers, but this would not considered to be a significant expense.
The affected insurer will have until January 1, 2007 for newly issued policies and until January 1, 2008 for renewing policies to comply with the proposed regulatory requirements. This delay will allow the insurer to spread any incurred cost over time thus reducing any potential financial effect of the rule and will permit more than sufficient time to modify forms and implement procedures necessary to comply with the proposed rule without being overly burdensome to the insurer.
b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required:
To the extent that the one LSHO small business provides a preferred provider plan, it will be required to comply with the preferred provider plan requirements and will incur a one-time expense associated with filing new policy forms, modifying provider contracts and implementing remedial action plan procedures related to quality problems. It is possible that the one insurer might also need to minimally modify its computer system for services rendered by nonparticipating providers for emergency medical care. The one insurer will have ample time within which to comply with the regulations due to significantly delayed applicability of the proposed rule.
c. Description of professional skills required:
The proposed rule does not impose additional professional skill requirements that it does not already possess.
OCI Small Business Regulatory Coordinator
The OCI small business coordinator is Eileen Mallow and may be reached at phone number (608) 266-7843 or at email address
Eileen.Mallow@oci.state.wi.us
Contact Person
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the OCI internet WEB site at
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm or by contacting Inger Williams, Services Section, OCI, at:
Inger.Williams@OCI.State.WI.US, (608) 264-8110, 125 South Webster Street – 2
nd Floor, Madison WI or PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873.
Notice of Hearing
Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) and
457.14, Wis. Stats., and interpreting s.
457.10 (3),
457.11 and
457.14, Wis. Stats., the Marriage and Family Therapist Section will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss.
MPSW 16.03 and
17.01, relating to supervised clinical practice and temporary licenses issued by the Marriage and Family Therapist Section.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: August 1, 2005
Time: 9:30 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 Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email to
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Written comments must be received on or before August 11, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Explanation of agency authority: The Marriage and Family Therapist Section has the authority under s.
457.03, Stats., to establish minimum standards for supervised clinical training. Those standards are set forth with specificity in s.
MPSW 16.03. They currently require one hour of face-to-face supervision for each 10 hours of supervised practice. The use of the term “supervised practice" has been confusing for applicants. As a result, the term “client contact" is being substituted to better clarify what is actually needed and should therefore remedy any confusion.
The Marriage and Family Therapist Section has the authority under s.
457.14, Stats., to issue temporary certificates and temporary licenses. More specifically, s.
MPSW 17.01 provides that a temporary marriage and family therapist license is valid for nine months or until the applicant's examination scores are released, whichever occurs first. It also provides for a renewal of the temporary license, not to exceed nine months. This proposal puts fewer restrictions on the renewal provisions for the temporary license thereby accommodating the practical realities that applicants typically face while attempting to obtain their permanent license.
Related statute or rule: There are no other statutes or rules.
Plain language analysis:
SECTION 1. The rules currently require one hour of face-to-face supervision for each 10 hours of supervised practice. The use of the term “supervised practice" has been confusing for applicants. Section
MPSW 16.03 is amended to substitute “supervised practice" with “client contact" to better clarify that supervisees must receive the minimum one hour of face-to-face supervision for each 10 client contact hours.
SECTION 2. The rules currently provide that a marriage and family therapist temporary license is valid for nine months or until the applicant's examination scores are released, whichever occurs first and also provides for a renewal not to exceed nine months. Section
MPSW 17.01 is amended to grant one renewal of the temporary license, and to permit a holder of a temporary license to place it “on hold."
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report:
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Fiscal Effect
The proposed rule will have no impact on the department's funds.
Effect on Small Business
Pursuant to s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats., these proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
christopher.klein@drl.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935. Telephone: (608) 266-0495. Email: pamela.haack@drl. state.wi.us.
Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission
Comments may be submitted to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935.
Email:
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2005, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
TEXT OF RULE
SECTION 1. MPSW 16.03 is amended to read:
MPSW 16.03 Supervised clinical practice. The person whose practice is being supervised shall receive a minimum of one hour of face-to-face supervision for each 10 client contact hours of supervised practice. Practice of marriage and family therapy which occurs as part of the requirements for obtaining a master's or doctoral degree in marriage and family therapy or a substantially related field shall not be considered to fulfill any part of the postgraduate supervised practice requirement. Only those individuals who hold a valid marriage and family therapist training certificate may begin accumulating hours towards their postgraduate supervised practice requirements.
SECTION 2. MPSW 17.01 is amended to read:
MPSW 17.01 Temporary license. The marriage and family therapist section may issue a temporary license permitting a person who has completed the educational and supervised practice requirements for eligibility for a license as a marriage and family therapist upon payment of the fee for the temporary license and application for the next available examination to use the title “marriage and family therapist" and to practice marriage and family therapy. The temporary license is valid for a period not to exceed 9 months from the date of its issuance, or the date on which examination scores are released, whichever comes sooner. The marriage and family therapists section may grant one renewal of the temporary license in cases of hardship, for a period not to exceed 9 months or the date of the release of scores from the next available examination after the date of renewal of the temporary license, whichever occurs sooner. A person who fails the licensure examination shall immediately return the temporary license to the marriage and family therapists section. The marriage and family therapists section may not grant or renew a temporary license to an applicant who has failed the licensure examination and it may be renewed once upon receipt of a written request and any required renewal fee. If a temporary license is returned to the department prior to its expiration along with a written request that it be placed on hold, the temporary license may later be reissued to the holder for the remainder of the 9 month period.
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
(Fish, Game, etc.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
29.014 and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., interpreting ss.
29.014 and
29.041, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch.
NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the 2005 migratory game bird seasons. The proposed order establishes the season length and bag limits for the 2005 Wisconsin migratory game bird seasons. Under international treaty and federal laws, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations process. The public hearings will be held after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's final draft framework is available.
For ducks, it is anticipated that for the 2005 season the state will be divided into two waterfowl hunting zones each with 60-day seasons. The season begins at noon September 24 and continues for 60 consecutive days in the north, closing on November 22. In the south the season begins at noon on October 1 and continues through October 9, followed by a 5-day split, and then reopens on October 15 and continues through December 4. The daily bag limit is 6 ducks including no more than: 4 mallards, of which only one may be a hen, one black duck, one pintail (from Sept. 24 (noon) – Oct. 23 in the North and from Oct. 1 (noon) – Oct. 9 and Oct. 15 – Nov. 4 in the south), one canvasback (from Oct. 15 – Nov. 13 statewide), 2 wood ducks, 2 redheads and 3 scaup.
For Canada geese, the state is apportioned into 3 goose hunting zones: Horicon, Collins and Exterior. Other special goose management subzones within the Exterior Zone include Brown County, Burnett County, Rock Prairie and the Mississippi River. Season lengths are: Collins Zone - 64 days (3 periods, first period beginning September 16); Horicon Zone - 92 days (4 periods, first period beginning September 16); Exterior Zone - 92 days (North: Sept. 17 – 23 and Sept. 24 (noon) – Dec. 17 and South: Sept 17 – Sept. 30 and Oct 1 (noon) – Dec. 17); and Mississippi River subzone - 70 days (Oct. 1 (noon) – Oct. 9 and Oct. 15 - Dec. 14). The Burnett County subzone is closed to Canada goose hunting. The statewide daily bag limit for Canada geese in the Horicon and Collins Zones is 2 birds per day during the open seasons within each zone. In the Exterior zone and its subzones the daily bag limit will be 1 bird per day until Oct. 31, and from Nov. 1 to the end of the season in each zone or subzone the daily bag limit will be 2 birds per day.
In addition, the rule includes the elimination Horicon Intensive Management Subzone and its corresponding goose hunting blind restrictions.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department is requesting specific public input on:
Placement of the waterfowl hunting zone line, if the Department continues to have only the north and south zones.
Waterfowl hunting zone locations if the Department is granted additional zone/split options.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
SmallBusinessReg.Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:
Monday, August 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Basement Auditorium, La Crosse Co. Admin. Bldg.
400 4th St. North
La Crosse
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
DNR Northern Region Headquarters
107 Sutliff Ave.
Rhinelander
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Room 310, Green Bay City Hall
100 N. Jefferson St.
Green Bay
Thursday, August 11, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Nagawicka Conference Room, Radisson Suites
Hwy. J and I-94
Pewaukee
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Kurt Thiede at (608) 267-2452 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Fiscal Effect
The proposed changes will not result in any significant changes in spending or revenue.
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Ken Van Horn, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 11, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Van Horn.
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
(Environmental Protection-General)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
59.692,
227.11 (2) (a) and
281.31, Stats., interpreting ss.
59.69,
59.692 and
281.31, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch.
NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to minimum standards for county shoreland zoning ordinances. The proposed revisions are intended to meet the statutory objectives of the program, while providing certainty and flexibility to counties and property owners. Changes include adding definitions to the rule for clarity; establishing standards for multi-unit residential development, mobile home parks and campgrounds; providing exemptions for certain activities from shoreland setback and shoreland vegetation standards; establishing impervious surface standards; and replacing the “50% rule" for nonconforming structures with a standard based on the size and location of structures. These changes will significantly decrease the number of variances granted by counties, allowing certain activities to be allowed with a simple administrative permit by the county. Substantive changes include:
Language is added to advance the statutory purposes of the program found in s.
281.31 (1), Stats.
Language is added recognizing that this rule only establishes minimum standards for county shoreland zoning ordinances, and counties may adopt more protective regulations to adequately protect local resources.
Language consistent with s.
59.692(7), Stats., is added to clarify how this rule impacts lands annexed or incorporated by cities and villages.
Language clarifying the authority of the town shoreland zoning ordinances is added.
Language clarifying the applicability of ch.
NR 115 in areas under the jurisdiction of ch.
NR 118 is added.
The number of definitions was increased from 13 to 52 to help provide consistency in interpretation of county shoreland zoning ordinances
The requirement for land division review is changed from the creation of “3 or more lots" to the creation of “one or more lots" to ensure that all new lots created meet minimum lot size requirements. This standard was added to protect prospective property owners and ensure that all lots have a buildable area.
If new lots are created that are divided by a stream or river, one side of the lot must meet minimum lot size requirements and density standards. No portion of a lot or parcel divided by a navigable stream may be developed unless that portion of the lot or parcel meets or is combined to meet the minimum lot size requirements and density standards. This provision will ensure that development only takes place on lots or parcels which meet minimum lot size requirements, again safeguarding property owners.
Counties may adopt standards to regulate substandard lots in common ownership.
Minimum lot size and density standards are established for multi-unit residential development, mobile home parks, campgrounds and other types of uses.
Counties may request the approval of an alternative regulation for campgrounds that is different than the minimum standards in ch.
NR 115. Counties utilizing this option must demonstrate how the alternative regulation would achieve the statutory purposes of the program.
Counties are granted the flexibility to regulate keyhole lots.
New lot width measurement is developed which will accommodate irregular shaped lots.
Counties are granted the flexibility to regulate backlots in the shoreland zone.
Outlots may be created as part of a subdivision plat or certified survey map.
Counties may request the approval of standards for alternative forms of development with reduced lot sizes and development densities for planned unit developments, cluster developments, conservation subdivisions, and other similar alternative forms of development if they include, at a minimum, a required shoreland setback of more than 75 feet and a larger primary buffer than is required in s.
NR 115.15 (2).
Language is added to address structures exempted by other state or federal laws from the shoreland setback standards.
Provisions are added to allow counties to exempt 15 types of structures from the shoreland setback, an increase from 3 exempted structures.
The construction of new dry boathouses is prohibited.
Standards are established to qualify a lot for a reduced setback and two methods of calculating the reduced setback are provided. Counties may also request approval of an alternative setback reduction formulate, demonstrating how the alternative is as effective in achieving the purposes of s.
281.31 (1) and
(6), Stats.
Language governing management of shoreland vegetation in the primary shoreland buffer is improved, resulting in a more functional buffer protection habitat and water quality.
Tree and shrubbery pruning is allowed. Removal of trees and shrubs may be allowed if exotic or invasive species, diseased or damaged, or if an imminent safety hazard, but must be replaced.
Provisions are added to allow counties to exempt 7 types of activities from the shoreland vegetation provisions.
A formula to calculate the vegetative buffer mitigation requirements for existing multiple-unit developments was added to proportionately mitigate based on the intensity of the project.
A formula for the width of access corridors is provided, replacing the “30 feet in any 100 feet" provision, which was confusing if a lot had less than 100 feet of frontage.
Existing lawns may be maintained indefinitely in the primary shoreland buffer, unless a property owner decides to initiate one of 5 actions that require restoration of the primary shoreland buffer.
Best management practices must be implemented and maintained that, to the maximum extent practicable, result in no increase in storm water discharge from impervious surfaces.
If a project results in a lot being covered with 20% or more impervious surfaces, the shoreland buffers must be preserved or restored in compliance with the standards in s.
NR 115.15 (applies only to lots with lands within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark).
An erosion control and revegetation plan is required for land disturbing activities to minimize erosion and sedimentation caused by the activity.
A county permit is required for land disturbing activities in the shoreland zone if the project includes 2,000 square feet or more of land.
Counties shall exempt from the permit requirement activities that have already received permits from other identified permitting authorities.
Counties may require a wetland buffer to minimize the impacts of land disturbing activities to prevent damage to wetlands.
The “50% rule" is removed, and a standard for the regulation of nonconforming structures based on the location and size of structures is used.
Unlimited ordinary maintenance and repairs is allowed on nonconforming structures.
Structural alternations are allowed on nonconforming structures if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county.
Expansion and replacement of nonconforming accessory structures is prohibited, unless located in a campground or mobile home park, and certain standards are satisfied.
Expansions of nonconforming principal structures is allowed is the structure is set back at least 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark, if the footprint cap is not exceeded, if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county and if other standards are met.
Replacement of nonconforming principal structures is allowed on the existing foundation anywhere within the shoreland setback area, and on new foundations if the structure is setback at least 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark, if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county, and if other standards are met.
Replacement of nonconforming principal structures is prohibited if the structure has no foundation, the foundation extends below the ordinary high water mark or the structure extends over the ordinary high water mark.
Counties shall adopt a mitigation system that is roughly proportional to the impacts of activities proposed.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
SmallBusinessReg.Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment in accordance is s.
1.11, Stats., and ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, that has concluded that the proposed rule is not a major state action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department will hold question and answer session from 4:30 p.m. until 5:45 p.m. prior to each hearing. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rules.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Chippewa Valley Technical College
620 Clairemont Avenue
Eau Claire
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Wis. Indianhead Technical College
2100 Beaser Avenue
Ashland
Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Room, Landmark Resort
7643 Hillside Road
Egg Harbor
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Western WI Technical College
304 6th Street North
La Crosse
Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Sentry World Theater
1800 North Point Drive
Stevens Point
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
UW Washington County
400 University Drive
West Bend
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Grand Chute Town Hall
1900 Grand Chute Boulevard
Grand Chute
Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Nicolet Technical College
County Highway G
Rhinelander
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Lake Lawn Resort
2400 East Geneva Street
Delavan
Thursday, August 4, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Oak Hall Room, Fitchburg Community Center
5520 Lacy Road
Fitchburg
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Toni Herkert at (608) 266-0161 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Toni Herkert, Bureau of Watershed Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 12, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Herkert.
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
(Environmental Protection-Air Pollution Control)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
227.11 (2) (a) and
285.11, Stats., interpreting s.
285.11 (6), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to ss.
NR 400.02 (162) and
424.05, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds" or “VOC" and VOC emission control requirements for yeast manufacturing facilities. The Department is proposing the revision to the definition of "VOC" in s.
NR 400.02 (162) to be consistent with EPA's federal definition at
40 CFR 51.100(s). The revision includes adding four compounds to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC and exclusion of one further compound from the definition but only for purposes of VOC emission limitation or content requirements and not for purposes of all recordkeeping, emission reporting, and inventory requirements. The Department is also proposing to revise the VOC emission control requirements for yeast manufacturing in s.
NR 424.05 to address an inconsistency with requirements in the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for yeast manufacturing at
40 CFR part 63 Subpart CCCC.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
a. Types of small businesses affected: facilities using t-butyl acetate or products that contain t-butyl acetate and emit VOCs in excess of 6000 pounds per year
b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required: Identical to requirements for compliance with the current rule
c. Description of professional skills required: Identical to requirement for compliance with the current rule
The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearing will be held on:
Monday, July 11, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.
Room 140-141, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, WI
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Robert Eckdale at (608) 266-2856 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Fiscal Effect
There is no fiscal impact anticipated.
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Farrokh Ghoreishi, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until July 11, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained by contacting Proposed Rules, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, phone: (608) 266-7718; FAX (608) 267-0560.
Notice of Hearing
Regulation and Licensing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Regulation and Licensing in s.
227.11 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss.
440.03 (1),
(2) and
440.04 (7), Wis. Stats., the Department of Regulation and Licensing will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss.
RL 1.03 (4),
1.04 (title),
1.05 (title),
1.07 (intro.) and
(3),
1.08 (1) and
(4),
1.09 (5),
1.11 and
1.12; and to create ss.
RL 1.03 (1g) and
(1r),
1.04 (3),
1.05 (3) and
1.09 (5m), relating to cheating on an examination and breach of examination security.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: July 12, 2005
Time: 10:00 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 Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email to
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Written comments must be received on or before July 25, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Explanation of agency authority: Section
440.04 (7), Stats., provides that the secretary of the Department of Regulation and Licensing, “
…provide examination development, administration, research and evaluation services as required." The general duties and powers of the department, s.
440.03 (1), Stats., provides that, “The department may promulgate rules defining uniform procedures to be used by the department
…for receiving, filing and investigating complaints, for commencing disciplinary proceedings and for conducting hearings." In promulgating rules concerning cheating on examinations or breach of examination security, the department seeks to codify its practices and policies concerning these matters.
Plain language analysis: The Department of Regulation and Licensing, its attached examining boards and affiliated credentialing boards currently administer over 25,000 examinations per year. Cheating and maintaining examination security are a growing problem. These rule changes provide uniform procedures for providing due process while codifying existing practices and policies in the handling and adjudication of cases of cheating or breaches of examination security.
Current Wisconsin credentialing board rules vary in specificity and are not updated to deal with current technology. The department finds it necessary to create a uniform standard and procedure for dealing with the instances of cheating that would combine best practices into one regulation, and would, in addition, avoid the need to update and promulgate separate identical rules for each credentialing authority.
SECTION 1. Definitions are created for the terms “breach of examination security" and “cheating on an examination." The definition of “breach of examination security" is meant to address the intentional removal from an examination site and/or theft of examination, or theft of examination questions either for personal use or for profit. It should be noted that the development of such questions is an expensive activity and a breach of the security of the examination questions necessitates developing new questions. The definition of “cheating on an examination" attempts to capture the numerous variants of cheating that have been experienced by examination specialists.
SECTION 2. The definition of “denial review proceeding" is broadened to include use of class 1 proceedings to determine whether an individual has cheated on an examination or there has been a breach of examination security.
SECTION 3. The definition of “office of examinations" is created to indicate that the reference is to the Department of Regulation and Licensing's office of examinations.
SECTION 4. The title of s.
RL 1.04 is amended to indicate that the consequences of cheating or a breach of examination security are treated therein.
SECTION 5. The range of consequences which may be imposed is indicated. Notice that distribution of information concerning the imposition of consequences for cheating or for breach of examination security is indicated. Notice that facilitation by a barber or cosmetology school or instructor in cheating or breach of security of an examination is indicated.
SECTION 6. The title of s.
RL 1.05 is amended to indicate that the consequences of cheating or a breach of examination security are treated therein.
SECTION 7. Section
RL 1.05 (3) is created to provide for notice to an individual following a determination by the office of examinations that there is probable cause to believe that the individual has cheated on an examination or breached the security of an examination.
SECTION 8. The Request for Hearing section at s.
RL 1.07 is amended to include requests after a determination that an individual has cheated on or breached the security of an examination.
SECTION 9. The Review of Request for Hearing section at s.
RL 1.08 (1) is amended to include Requests for Hearing based on determinations of cheating or a breach of examination security. Section
RL 1.08 (4) is amended to indicate that the office of examinations has the burden of proof by satisfactory evidence in class 1 hearings concerning cheating on or breach of security of examinations.
SECTION 10. Section
RL 1.09 (5) is amended to include the office of examinations in this subsection which indicates what evidence may be presented and considered at hearing.
SECTION 11. Section
RL 1.09 (5m) instructs the hearing presiding officer to insure that the examination security is maintained during the proceedings.
SECTION 12. Section
RL 1.11 is amended to indicate that an individual's failure to appear at their hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the credentialing authority. Section
RL 1.12 is amended to allow for withdrawal of a request for hearing on a determination of cheating on or breach of the security of an examination.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies: Cheating on licensing examinations is an ongoing and significant problem. Instances of cheating have increased in recent years with the advent of new technology.
Three well-publicized recent national examples are: The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy sued 4 candidates for trading more than 100 questions from the national licensing examination via an Internet chat room. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy suspended its Educational Equivalency Examination for seven months after determining that 15 foreign candidates traded 200 national examination questions on 2 web sites in Korea and India. The National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners refused to validate scores from four U.S. schools after determining that hundreds of students traded examination material by email and study guides.
Numbers of instances have been increasing at the state credentialing level, as well. In the twenty years from 1981 to 2001, there were 6 identified instances of cheating on record at the Department. There were about 15,000 administrations per year at the start of that period, gradually increasing to about 25,000 administrations today. In the four years since 2001, there have been 8 instances of cheating identified on state credentialing examinations. These instances include instances of identical answer sheets, missing booklets and copying questions to remove them from the room.
The increasing culture of cheating has been noted in the recent book by Gregory Cizek, Cheating on Tests, c 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, and numerous articles such as, “New Calculators Force NCEES to Tighten Exam Security Policy," Engineering Times, Feb 2004; “Exam Security and High-Tech Cheating", The Bar Examiner, vol 67, no 3, c 1998. The online publication, “Cheating in the News" publishes five to ten recent articles each month about cheating around the world, often on state assessments of high school performance or college entrance examinations.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report: The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Fiscal Estimate
The department estimates the right to appeal may be used to require one hearing a year. The projected value of the staff time to conduct one hearing of this type is $300.
Effect on Small Business
Pursuant to s.
227.114 (1), Stats., these proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
christopher.klein@drl.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935. Email
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us.
Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
Comments may be submitted to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935; email
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
TEXT OF RULE
SECTION 1. RL 1.03 (1g) and (1r) are created to read:
RL 1.03 (1g) “Breach of examination security" means any of the following:
(a) Removing from the examination room any examination materials without authorization.
(b) Reproducing, or assisting a person in reproducing, any portion of the credentialing examination by any means and without authorization.
(c) Paying a person to take the credentialing examination to discover the content of any portion of the credentialing examination.
(d) Obtaining examination questions or other examination materials, except by specific authorization before, during, or after an examination.
(e) Using, or purporting to use, improperly obtained examination questions or materials to instruct or prepare an applicant for the credentialing examination.
(f) Selling, distributing, buying, receiving or having unauthorized possession of any portion of a future, current, or previously administered credentialing examination.
(1r) “Cheating on an examination" includes but is not limited to:
(a) Communicating with other persons inside or outside of the examination room concerning examination content using any means of communication while the examination is being administered.
(b) Copying the answers of another applicant, or permitting answers to be copied by another applicant.
(c) Substituting another person for the applicant who writes one or more of the examination answers or papers in the place of the applicant.
(d) Referring to “crib notes," textbooks or other unauthorized information sources inside or outside the examination room while the examination is being administered.
(e) Disclosing the nature or content of any examination question or answer to another person prior to, during, or subsequent to the conclusion of the examination.
(f) Removing or attempting to remove any examination materials, notes or facsimiles of examination content such as photo, audiovisual, or electronic records from the examination room.
(g) Violating rules of conduct of the examination.
SECTION 2. RL 1.03 (4) is amended to read:
RL 1.03 (4) “Denial review proceeding" means a class 1 proceeding as defined in s.
227.01 (3) (a), Stats., in which a credentialing authority reviews
either a decision to deny a completed application for a credential
or a determination of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security.
SECTION 3. RL 1.03 (7) is created to read:
RL 1.03 (7). “Office of examinations" means the office of examinations in the department.
SECTION 4. RL 1.04 (title) is amended to read:
RL 1.04 (title) Examination failure: retake and hearing, consequences of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security.
SECTION 5. RL 1.04 (3) is created to read:
RL 1.04 (3)
Consequences imposed for cheating on an examination or for committing a breach of examination security shall be related to the seriousness of the offense and may include, but not be limited to; denial of grades; entering of a failing grade on all examinations in which cheating occurred; restrictions on reexamination; or denial of licensure. If more than one applicant is involved in a connected offense of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security, each applicant knowingly involved is subject to the consequences in this section.
(a) Restrictions on reexamination may include denying the applicant the right to retake the examination for a specified period of time, or the imposition of a permanent bar on reexamination.
(b) The department may provide information on the consequences imposed upon an applicant to other jurisdictions where the applicant may apply for credentialing or examination.
(c) If an approved or credentialed school or instructor is found to have facilitated actions constituting cheating on an examination or breach of examination security, the school or instructor may be subject to disciplinary action or revocation of approval.
SECTION 6. RL 1.05 (title) is amended to read:
RL 1.05 (title) Notice of intent to deny and, notice of denial and notice of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security.
SECTION 7. RL 1.05 (3) is created to read:
RL 1.05 (3) NOTICE OF CHEATING ON AN EXAMINATION OR BREACH OF EXAMINATION SECURITY. If after an investigation the office of examinations determines there is probable cause to believe that an applicant has cheated on an examination or breached examination security and the office of examinations and the applicant cannot agree upon a consequence acceptable to the credentialing authority, the office of examinations shall issue a notice of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security. The notice shall:
(a) Include the name and address of the applicant, the examination involved, and a statement identifying with reasonable particularity the grounds for the conclusion that the applicant has cheated on an examination or breached examination security.
(b) Be mailed to the applicant at the address provided in the materials submitted by the applicant when applying to take the examination. Notice is effective upon mailing.
SECTION 8. RL 1.07 (intro.) and (3) are amended to read:
RL 1.07 Request for hearing. (intro.) An applicant may request a hearing within 45 calendar days after the mailing of a notice of denial by the credentialing authority or notice of cheating on an examination or breach of examination security by the office of examinations. The request shall be in writing and set forth all of the following:
(3) A specific description of the mistake in fact or law that constitutes reasonable grounds for reversing the decision to deny the application for a credential or for reversing a determination of cheating on an examination or a determination of breach of examination security. If the applicant asserts that a mistake in fact was made, the request shall include a concise statement of the essential facts that the applicant intends to prove at the hearing. If the applicant asserts a mistake in law was made, the request shall include a statement of the law upon which the applicant relies.
SECTION 9. RL 1.08 (1) and (4) are amended to read:
RL 1.08 (1) REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR HEARING. Within 45 calendar days of receipt of a request for hearing, the credentialing authority or its designee shall grant or deny the request for a hearing on a denial of a credential
or on a determination of cheating on an examination or a determination of breach of examination security. A request shall be granted if requirements in s.
RL 1.07 are met, and the credentialing authority or its designee shall notify the applicant of the time, place and nature of the hearing. If the requirements in s.
RL 1.07 are not met, a hearing shall be denied, and the credentialing authority or its designee shall inform the applicant in writing of the reason for denial. For purposes of a petition for review under s.
227.52, Stats., a request is denied if a response to a request for hearing is not issued within 45 calendar days of its receipt by the credentialing authority.
(4) BURDEN OF PROOF. The applicant has the burden of proof to show by evidence satisfactory to the credentialing authority that the applicant meets the eligibility requirements set by law for the credential. The office of examinations has the burden of proof to show by satisfactory evidence that the applicant cheated on an examination or breached examination security.
SECTION 10. RL 1.09 (5) is amended to read:
RL 1.09 (5) EVIDENCE. The credentialing authority, the office of examinations and the applicant shall have the right to appear in person or by counsel, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence into the record. If the applicant submits evidence of eligibility for a credential which was not submitted to the credentialing authority prior to denial of the application, the presiding officer may request the credentialing authority to reconsider the application and the evidence of eligibility not previously considered.
SECTION 11. RL 1.09 (5m) is created to read:
RL 1.09 (5m) CONFIDENTIALITY OF EXAMINATION RECORDS. The presiding officer shall take appropriate precautions to preserve examination security in conjunction with the conduct of a hearing held pursuant to this section.
SECTION 12. RL 1.11 and 1.12 are amended to read:
RL 1.11 Failure to appear. In the event that neither the applicant nor his or her representative appears at the time and place designated for the hearing, the credentialing authority may take action based upon the record as submitted. By failing to appear, an applicant waives any right to appeal before the action taken by the credentialing authority which denied the license.
RL 1.12 Withdrawal of request. A request for hearing may be withdrawn at any time. Upon receipt of a request for withdrawal, the credentialing authority shall issue an order affirming the withdrawal of a request for hearing on the denial or on the determination of cheating on an examination or determination of breach of examination security.
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16 (1) and
348.07 (4), Stats., interpreting s.
348.07 (4), Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing at the following location to consider the amendment of chapter Trans 276, Wisconsin Administrative Code, relating to allowing the operation of double bottoms and certain other vehicles on certain specified highways:
July 15, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.
Transportation Southeast Region
141 NW Barstow Street, Room 338A-B
Waukesha, WI
(Parking is available for persons with disabilities)
An interpreter for the hearing impaired will be available on request for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Plain Language Analysis and Summary of, and Preliminary Comparison with, Existing or Federal Regulation. In the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), the federal government acted under the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution to provide uniform standards on vehicle length applicable in all states. The length provisions of STAA apply to truck tractor-semitrailer combinations and to truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations. (See Jan. 6, 1983, Public Law 97-424, § 411) The uniform standards provide that:
•
No state shall impose a limit of less than 48 feet on a semitrailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer combination.
•
No state shall impose a length limit of less than 28 feet on any semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination.
•
No state may limit the length of truck tractors.
•
No state shall impose an overall length limitation on commercial vehicles operating in truck tractor-semitrailer or truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations.
•
No state shall prohibit operation of truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations.
The vehicles authorized by the STAA may operate on the national system of interstate and defense highways and on those federal aid primary highways designated by regulation of the secretary of the United States Department of Transportation. In 1984 the USDOT adopted
23 CFR Part 658 which in Appendix A lists the highways in each state upon which STAA authorized vehicles may operate. Collectively these highways are known as the National Network. In
1983 Wisconsin Act 78, the legislature enacted §
348.07 (4), Stats., which directs the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to adopt a rule designating the highways in Wisconsin on which STAA authorized vehicles may be operated consistent with federal regulations.
The Department of Transportation first adopted ch.
Trans 276 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code in December of 1984. The rule is consistent with
23 CFR Part 658 in that the Wisconsin rule designates all of the highways in Wisconsin that are listed in
23 CFR Part 658 as part of the National Network for STAA authorized vehicles. The federal regulation does not prohibit states from allowing operation of STAA authorized vehicles on additional state highways. The rule making authority granted to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in §
348.07 (4), Stats., allows the DOT to add routes in Wisconsin consistent with public safety. The rule making process also provides a mechanism to review requests from businesses and shipping firms for access to the designated highway system for points of origin and delivery beyond 5 miles from a designated route. A process to review and respond to requests for reasonable access is required by
23 CFR Part 658.
This rule amends Trans 276.07 (11) and (24), Wisconsin Administrative Code, to add two segments of highway to the designated highway system established under s.
348.07 (4), Stats. The actual highway segment that this rule adds to the designated highway system is:
Hwy. From To
STH 175 CTH P S. of Theresa STH 60
STH 50 IH 43 USH12
The long trucks to which this rule applies are those with 53-foot semitrailers, double bottoms and the vehicles which may legally operate on the federal National Network, but which exceed Wisconsin's regular limits on overall length. Generally, no person may operate any of the following vehicles on Wisconsin's highways without a permit: A single vehicle with an overall length in excess of 40 feet, a combination of vehicles with an overall length in excess of 65 feet, a semitrailer longer than 48 feet, an automobile haulaway longer than 66 feet plus allowed overhangs, or a double bottom. Certain exceptions are provided under s.
348.07 (2), Stats., which implements provisions of the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act in Wisconsin.
The effect of this rule will be to extend the provisions of s.
348.07 (2) (f),
(fm),
(gm) and
(gr), and s.
348.08 (1) (e), Stats., to the highway segments listed above. As a result, vehicles which may legally operate on the federal National Network in Wisconsin will also be allowed to operate on the newly-designated highway. Specifically, this means there will be no overall length limitation for a tractor-semitrailer combination, a double bottom or an automobile haulaway on the affected highway segment. There also will be no length limitation for a truck tractor or road tractor when operated in a tractor-semitrailer combination or as part of a double bottom or an automobile haulaway. Double bottoms will be allowed to operate on the affected highway segment provided neither trailer is longer than 28 feet, 6 inches. Semitrailers up to 53 feet long may also be operated on this highway segment provided the kingpin to rear axle distance does not exceed 43 feet. This distance is measured from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle or, if the semitrailer has a tandem axle, to a point midway between the first and last axles of the tandem. Otherwise, semitrailers, including semitrailers which are part of an automobile haulaway, are limited to 48 feet in length.
These vehicles and combinations are also allowed to operate on undesignated highways for a distance of 5 miles or less from the designated highway in order to reach fuel, food, maintenance, repair, rest, staging, terminal or vehicle assembly or points of loading or unloading.
Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States: None of the states adjacent to Wisconsin (Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa) have administrative rules relating to long truck routes in their states.
Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies Used and How the Related Findings Support the Regulatory Approach Chosen: Due to the federal requirement that requests for access to the designated highway system in a state be decided within 90 days of the request, a proposed rule making to add requested routes is initiated without investigation. The public hearing and Department investigation undertaken in preparation for the hearing provide the engineering and economic data needed to make a final decision on whether to withdraw the proposal or proceed to final rule making.
Effect on Small Business and, If Applicable, Any Analysis and Supporting Documentation Used to Determine Effect on Small Businesses: The provisions of this rule adding a highway segment to the designated system have no direct adverse effect on small businesses, and may have a favorable effect on those small businesses which are shippers or carriers using the newly-designated routes. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
reggie.newson@dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 264-6669.
Fiscal Effect and Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector: The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on the liabilities or revenues of any county, city, village, town, school district, vocational, technical and adult education district, sewerage district, or federally-recognized tribes or bands. The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities.
Contact Person and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission: The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Ashwani Sharma, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway Operations, Room 501, P. O. Box 7986, Madison, WI 53707-7986. You may also contact Mr. Sharma by phone at (608) 266-1273.
To view the proposed amendments to the rule, view the current rule, and submit written comments via e-mail/internet, you may visit the following website:
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16 (1) and
348.07 (4), Stats., interpreting s.
348.07 (4), Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing at the following location to consider the amendment of chapter Trans 276, Wisconsin Administrative Code, relating to allowing the operation of double bottoms and certain other vehicles on certain specified highways:
July 29, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.
Transportation Northeast Region
944 Vanderperren Way
Lake Michigan/Green Bay Conference Rooms
Green Bay, WI
(Parking is available for persons with disabilities)
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Plain Language Analysis and Summary of, and Preliminary Comparison with, Existing or Federal Regulation. In the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), the federal government acted under the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution to provide uniform standards on vehicle length applicable in all states. The length provisions of STAA apply to truck tractor-semitrailer combinations and to truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations. (See Jan. 6, 1983, Public Law 97-424, § 411) The uniform standards provide that:
•
No state shall impose a limit of less than 48 feet on a semitrailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer combination.
•
No state shall impose a length limit of less than 28 feet on any semitrailer or trailer operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination.
•
No state may limit the length of truck tractors.
•
No state shall impose an overall length limitation on commercial vehicles operating in truck tractor-semitrailer or truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations.
•
No state shall prohibit operation of truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combinations.
The vehicles authorized by the STAA may operate on the national system of interstate and defense highways and on those federal aid primary highways designated by regulation of the secretary of the United States Department of Transportation. In 1984 the USDOT adopted
23 CFR Part 658 which in Appendix A lists the highways in each state upon which STAA authorized vehicles may operate. Collectively these highways are known as the National Network. In
1983 Wisconsin Act 78, the legislature enacted §
348.07 (4), Stats., which directs the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to adopt a rule designating the highways in Wisconsin on which STAA authorized vehicles may be operated consistent with federal regulations.
The Department of Transportation first adopted ch.
Trans 276 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code in December of 1984. The rule is consistent with
23 CFR Part 658 in that the Wisconsin rule designates all of the highways in Wisconsin that are listed in
23 CFR Part 658 as part of the National Network for STAA authorized vehicles. The federal regulation does not prohibit states from allowing operation of STAA authorized vehicles on additional state highways. The rule making authority granted to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in §
348.07 (4), Stats., allows the DOT to add routes in Wisconsin consistent with public safety. The rule making process also provides a mechanism to review requests from businesses and shipping firms for access to the designated highway system for points of origin and delivery beyond 5 miles from a designated route. A process to review and respond to requests for reasonable access is required by
23 CFR Part 658.
This rule amends Trans 276.07 (12), Wisconsin Administrative Code, to add one segment of highway to the designated highway system established under s.
348.07 (4), Stats. The actual highway segment that this rule adds to the designated highway system is:
Hwy. From To
STH 57 Sturgeon Bay Sister Bay
The long trucks to which this rule applies are those with 53-foot semitrailers, double bottoms and the vehicles which may legally operate on the federal National Network, but which exceed Wisconsin's regular limits on overall length. Generally, no person may operate any of the following vehicles on Wisconsin's highways without a permit: A single vehicle with an overall length in excess of 40 feet, a combination of vehicles with an overall length in excess of 65 feet, a semitrailer longer than 48 feet, an automobile haulaway longer than 66 feet plus allowed overhangs, or a double bottom. Certain exceptions are provided under s.
348.07 (2), Stats., which implements provisions of the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act in Wisconsin.
The effect of this rule will be to extend the provisions of s.
348.07 (2) (f),
(fm),
(gm) and
(gr), and s.
348.08 (1) (e), Stats., to the highway segments listed above. As a result, vehicles which may legally operate on the federal National Network in Wisconsin will also be allowed to operate on the newly-designated highway. Specifically, this means there will be no overall length limitation for a tractor-semitrailer combination, a double bottom or an automobile haulaway on the affected highway segment. There also will be no length limitation for a truck tractor or road tractor when operated in a tractor-semitrailer combination or as part of a double bottom or an automobile haulaway. Double bottoms will be allowed to operate on the affected highway segment provided neither trailer is longer than 28 feet, 6 inches. Semitrailers up to 53 feet long may also be operated on this highway segment provided the kingpin to rear axle distance does not exceed 43 feet. This distance is measured from the kingpin to the center of the rear axle or, if the semitrailer has a tandem axle, to a point midway between the first and last axles of the tandem. Otherwise, semitrailers, including semitrailers which are part of an automobile haulaway, are limited to 48 feet in length.
These vehicles and combinations are also allowed to operate on undesignated highways for a distance of 5 miles or less from the designated highway in order to reach fuel, food, maintenance, repair, rest, staging, terminal or vehicle assembly or points of loading or unloading.
Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States: None of the states adjacent to Wisconsin (Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa) have administrative rules relating to long truck routes in their states.
Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies Used and How the Related Findings Support the Regulatory Approach Chosen: Due to the federal requirement that requests for access to the designated highway system in a state be decided within 90 days of the request, a proposed rule making to add requested routes is initiated without investigation. The public hearing and Department investigation undertaken in preparation for the hearing provide the engineering and economic data needed to make a final decision on whether to withdraw the proposal or proceed to final rule making.
Effect on Small Business and, If Applicable, Any Analysis and Supporting Documentation Used to Determine Effect on Small Businesses: The provisions of this rule adding a highway segment to the designated system have no direct adverse effect on small businesses, and may have a favorable effect on those small businesses which are shippers or carriers using the newly-designated routes. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
reggie.newson@dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 264-6669.
Fiscal Effect and Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector: The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on the liabilities or revenues of any county, city, village, town, school district, vocational, technical and adult education district, sewerage district, or federally-recognized tribes or bands. The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities.
Contact Person and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission: The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Ashwani Sharma, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highway Operations, Room 501, P. O. Box 7986, Madison, WI 53707-7986. You may also contact Mr. Sharma by phone at (608) 266-1273.
