Policy analysis
Objective of the rule. New administrative rules are required to amend existing administrative rules for the scope of practice of chiropractic as well as define the substance and requirements of what constitutes a board-approved 48 hour post graduate program in nutrition. Rule making to develop additional continuing education requirements may be called for as the certification envisioned by the new legislation is a lifetime certification. Additionally, the rule may include exemptions for advanced nutritional education such as a licensed chiropractor who holds a Diplomate in nutrition.
Policy alternatives
Currently, administrative rules do not exist for addressing or defining what should constitute a “board approved" program. Additionally, current statutes and rules define nutritional counseling – but not the “sale" of vitamins, herbs or nutritional supplements – as outside the scope of practice of chiropractic:
Wis. Stat. s.
446.01 (2) (a) (a) To examine into the fact, condition, or cause of departure from complete health and proper condition of the human; to treat without the use of drugs as defined in s.
450.01 (10) or surgery; to counsel; to advise for the same for the restoration and preservation of health or to undertake, offer, advertise, announce or hold out in any manner to do any of the aforementioned acts, for compensation, direct or indirect or in expectation thereof;
(a)
Any substance recognized as a drug in the official U.S. pharmacopoeia and national formulary or official homeopathic pharmacopoeia of the United States or any supplement to either of them;
(b)
Any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease or other conditions in persons or other animals;
(c)
Any substance other than a device or food intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of persons or other animals; or any substance intended for use as a component of any article specified in pars. (a) to (c) but does not include gases or devices or articles intended for use or consumption in or for mechanical, industrial, manufacturing or scientific applications or purposes.
Wis. Admin. Code s.
Chir 4.05 Prohibited Practice – Chir 4.05 (1) (d) The prescribing, dispensing, delivery or administration of drugs as defined in s.
450.01 (10), Stats., except nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent the sale of vitamins, herbs or nutritional supplements.
In the recently passed
2005 Wisconsin Act 25, there are new provisions for chiropractors to expand their scope of practice by completing 48 hours of
board-approved postgraduate study in nutrition and paying a one-time certification fee of $25. This new legislation grants a lifetime certification to practice in an expanded area. The board is amending its rules based on the new statutes and finds that there are no alternatives to the rule-making process.
Statutory alternatives
Comparison with federal requirements
None.
Entities affected by the rule
Licensed chiropractors who wish to obtain a certification for nutritional counseling. Potentially licensed chiropractors who have advanced degrees such as a Diplomate in nutrition.
Staff time required
250 hours.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. The development and adoption of a rule to meet the BART (Best Available Retrofit Technology) provision of the Regional Haze Regulations at
40 CFR 51.300 through
51.309 and Appendix Y to Part 51.
New regulatory requirements are anticipated to limit the emission of visibility-impairing air pollutants from certain stationary sources by requiring the affected sources to apply BART.
Policy analysis
Sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA) [
42 USC 7491 and
7492] contain requirements for the protection and improvement of visibility in certain scenic areas across the United States. These areas, called “Mandatory Class I Federal Areas" or “Class I areas", are national parks and wilderness areas, where visibility is an important air quality related value. To meet the CAA's requirement, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final version of the Regional Haze Regulations in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104). These regulations along with other requirements for protection of visibility are codified at
40 CFR 51.300 through
51.309. Under the regional haze program in
40 CFR 51.308, all states, including Wisconsin, are required to revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address regional haze in Class I areas affected by emission sources in their states. One of the provisions of the program is the requirement that certain existing stationary sources emitting visibility- impairing air pollutants install and operate the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The EPA has provided guidelines for identification of sources subject to BART and a set of general criteria for BART determinations. The regulations require a case-by-case BART determination to define specific emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance for each source subject to BART. These requirements would be part of the SIP revision that must be submitted to EPA by December 17, 2007.
To meet the BART related requirements of the Regional Haze Regulations, the Department intends to identify the sources subject to BART, notify the corresponding facilities, prepare guidance for BART determinations and require the affected facilities to perform the BART determinations. The Department believes that this concept is the most effective and practicable approach considering the time available and the scope of work involved in case-by-case BART determinations. Therefore, the Department is proposing to develop a corresponding BART rule that would need to be adopted in June 2006 to give the facilities sufficient time to perform the engineering study for BART determinations.
The requirements of the BART rule would likely be limited to the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions from sources subject to BART. The BART engineering study would define the level of emissions reduction regardless of other existing rules. However If the BART study determines that the existing controls satisfy the BART requirements, additional controls would not be required. A special case is the BART determination for the electric generating units (EGUs). The EPA leaves to states the discretion to decide whether BART determinations for EGUs are required or the participation of EGUs in the cap and trade program of CAIR (Clean Air Interstate Rule) would satisfy the BART requirement. The Department has not made this decision yet.
Since the state of Wisconsin does not have any regulations related to regional haze, there are no existing policies relevant to the proposed rule.
Statutory authority
Wisconsin is required to comply with the BART requirements for BART-affected sources under
42 USC 7491 and
7492 and
40 CFR 51.300 to
51.309. The Department has the authority to promulgate this rule under s.
285.11 (6), Wis. Stats.
Staff time required
The department estimates approximately 1,200 hours of staff time will be required to develop the BART rule.
Comparison with federal requirements
Section 169A of CAA calls for EPA to promulgate regulations that address the visibility impairment in Class I areas. To fulfill the CAA requirements, EPA first promulgated regulations in 1980 to address the visibility impairment that is “reasonably attributable" to one or a small group of sources. These regulations affected 35 States containing Class I areas. Wisconsin was not among the affected States.
In 1999, EPA published another regulation to put in place a national regulatory program that addressed both “reasonably attributable" and “regional haze" visibility impairment. The regional haze is the visibility impairment caused by the cumulative air pollutant emissions from numerous sources over a wide geographic area. With the Regional Haze Regulations EPA called for all states to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in Class I areas. Since these regulations were legally challenged, EPA revised them according to the court decision and reissued them in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39104). The Department is proposing the BART rule to address the BART provision of these regulations.
Affected sources' compliance with certain other federal requirements may constitute compliance with BART requirements. For example facilities affected by the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) must meet the maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). It is expected that the MACT level of control may satisfy the BART requirements regarding PM emissions.
Also as mentioned above, CAIR, another federal program, may be considered as substitute for BART for electric generating units (EGUs).
Entities affected by the rule
The proposed BART rule would apply to major stationary sources meeting certain criteria. The Department has preliminarily identified the affected sources. They are in the following categories:
Electric generating facilities
There are approximately 10 facilities in this category. They may not be affected by the proposed BART rule, because States are provided with discretion to accept compliance with CAIR as sufficient for the BART level of control.
Pulp and paper facilities
There are approximately 7 facilities in this category
Manufacturing of chemicals including paint
There are approximately three facilities in this category
Foundries
There are approximately three facilities in this category
Wisconsin Department of Administration (Wis DOA)
There is one State facility (heating plant) for which Wis DOA is responsible.
Oil refinery
There may be one facility in this category
Lime manufacturing
There may be one facility in this category
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. Within the next 12 - 18 months, revise the solid waste (SW) rules (Ch.
NR 520) to remove a provision which requires the Department to modify the landfill license surcharge fee if the balance in the program revenue account exceeds a specified level.
Policy analysis
A rule revision package was approved in 2003 which revised Ch.
NR 520 to increase SW facility plan review and license fees, including the landfill license fee surcharge. As part of the rule revision package, language was added to the chapter which required that, beginning in FY05, if the account balance at the end of the previous fiscal year is greater than 8% of the expenditure level of the program revenue account authorized in s.
20.370 (2) (dg), Stats., the DNR must submit to the NR Board proposed rule revisions to modify the surcharge fee to more closely align revenues with expenditures. Eight percent of the expenditure level in the account is about $250,000. In both FY04 and FY05, the account balance exceeded the limit by about $150,000; however, long-term projections for the account show a projected deficit by FY07. It's become apparent that trying to maintain the account balance at the 8% level is not practical. The Waste Program has been fiscally responsible in how they manage this account and hold annual public meetings to report on the status of the account. Interested groups are SW landfill owners (private & public) & manufacturing businesses, since the surcharge fee applies to SW disposed of at landfills.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
76 hours.
Comparison with federal requirements
The proposed rule/board action conforms to and does not exceed federal regulations.
Revenue
Subject
Ss.
Tax 1.12 and
2.04, relating to electronic funds transfer, information returns, and wage statements.
Entities affected by the rule
Pass-through entities that have Wisconsin income allocable to a partner, member, shareholder, or beneficiary that is a nonresident of Wisconsin. This includes partnerships, limited liability companies, tax-option corporations, estates, and trusts that are treated as pass-through entities for federal income tax purposes.
Employers required to file Form WT-7, Employers Annual Reconciliation of Wisconsin Income Tax Withheld from Wages.
Accounting firms, payroll companies, and other entities that prepare and file Wisconsin returns for the above-listed entities.
Comparison with federal requirements
The department is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Policy analysis
Objective of the rule. The objectives of the proposed rule are to:
•
Create a provision specifying that income and franchise tax withholding payments of pass-through entities are required to be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT).
•
Change a provision to specify that EFT payments made by automated clearing house (ACH) debit transfer may be initiated up until 4:00 p.m. on the due date of the payment.
•
Create a provision specifying that the department may require pass-through entities to file returns for nonresident withholding taxes by electronic means.
•
Create a provision specifying that the department may require Form WT-7, Employers Annual Reconciliation of Wisconsin Income Tax Withheld from Wages, to be filed by electronic means.
•
Update notes to list current street and mailing addresses.
Policy analysis:
Existing policies are as set forth in the rules.
In addition, new policies are being proposed, whereby the department may require that certain returns be filed by electronic means and certain payments be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT), as authorized under ss.
71.63 (3m),
71.738 (2), and
73.029, Wis. Stats.
If the rules are not changed, they will be incorrect in that they will not reflect current law, or current or proposed department policy.
Statutory authority
227.11 (2) (a), Stats.
Staff time required
The department estimates it will take approximately 100 hours to develop this rule order
