Section ADM 12.05(3) requires agencies to restrict and limit access to confidential records maintained in an electronic format.
Plain Language Analysis
Ch.
Trans 195 establishes fees for searches of vehicle and driver records. The provisions cover both single (individual) driver and vehicle records, and also large volumes of data that include many records, of multiple drivers or vehicles.
The amendment defines “records in bulk" to refer to more than 10 individual vehicle or driver records that are provided at one time, and distinguishes records in bulk from individual vehicle or driver license records. The amendment defines several terms relating to personal information that may not be disclosed under federal law or provisions of state law, and defines “redaction" as separating that personal information from records.
The amendment clarifies the procedure for a request to search vehicle and driver license records, eliminating obsolete, contradictory, and redundant provisions. The amendment clarifies what the fee is for search of individual vehicle or driver record, as distinct from the fee for records in bulk, which is a compilation of multiple individual records. The amendment establishes the fee for redaction or records.
The amendment adds a provision to reflect current technological ability to offer direct access to vehicle and driver license records. The provision allows DOT to provide direct access to vehicle and driver license records, under a contract developed by DOT. With certain exceptions, any person who enters such a contract must obtain a criminal history background check for any person who will have direct access to vehicle or driver license records.
Comparison with Federal Regulation
The federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act governs all State DMVs' authority to release certain personal information. This rule complies with DPPA.
Comparison with Rules in the Following States
Michigan: Michigan charges for individual record search $7; and $16/1,000 for records in bulk that are routinely generated, and $64/1000 that are custom-prepared. Charge is based on preparation plus market-based price. Michigan has statutory authority to sell records.
Minnesota: Minnesota charges for individual record search $9 if provided in paper and $5 if electronic; and $5,000 plus $850 weekly for records in bulk routinely generated. Charge is based on a reasonable fee in addition to costs of preparation. Minnesota has statutory authority to sell records.
Illinois: Illinois charges for individual record search $5 per record; and $50/1,000 for records in bulk that are routinely generated. Charge is based on costs of preparation or $50/1000, whichever is greater. Illinois has statutory authority to sell records.
Iowa: Iowa charges for individual driver record for $5.50 if provided in certified (paper) and $8.50 if electronic, and fee based on staff time and copy cost for vehicle records; and $12.09 per computer minute for certain records in bulk or $8.50 per record for certain other records in bulk. Iowa has statutory authority to sell records.
Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies
This rule making clarifies current DMV policies. No new regulatory approach is created.
Analysis to Determine Effect on Small Businesses
This amendment clarifies current DMV policies on fee calculation, and current contract requirement for any person who enters a contract with DOT for direct access to vehicle or driver license records. Fees are not changed by this rule making. A redaction fee would seldom be needed for record requests made by small businesses.
Effect on Small Business
This amendment will have minimal increased cost on small business. The rule requires that a business obtain a criminal background check from the Wisconsin Department of Justice for all persons who will have direct access to vehicle or driver license records. The Department of Justice currently charges a fee of $13 (request by internet) or $18 (request by mail or fax) for each criminal background check. For example, if a small business has 25 employees and 10 of those employees are proposed to have direct access to vehicle or driver license records, the small business would need to pay the Department of Justice up to $180 for criminal background checks. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
ralph.sanders@dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (414) 438-4585.
Fiscal Effect
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.
Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities.
Agency Contact Person and Submission of Comments
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 Carson Frazier, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Vehicle Services, Room 253, P. O. Box 7911, Madison, WI 53707-7911. You may also contact Ms. Frazier by phone at (608) 266-7857 or e-mail:
carson.frazier@dot.state.wi.us.
Copy of Rule on Internet
Notice of Hearing
Veterinary Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Veterinary Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) and
453.03, Stats., and interpreting ss.
453.062 and
453.07, Stats., the Veterinary Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to renumber s.
VE 1.02 (1); and to create ss.
VE 1.02 (1),
7.01 (5),
7.025,
7.03 (2) (q) and
(3) (k),
7.06 (23) and
10.03 (4) (g), relating to continuing education, informed consent and recordkeeping.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: August 8, 2007
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
(Enter at 55 North Dickinson Street)
Room 121A
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. Written comments must be received by August 10, 2007, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis Prepared by Dept. of Regulation and Licensing
Related Statute or Rule: There are no other related statutes or rules other than those listed above.
Explanation of Agency Authority: The Veterinary Examining Board is authorized under s.
453.03 (1), Stats., to promulgate rules establishing the scope of practice permitted for veterinarians and rules relating to continuing education and unprofessional conduct.
Plain Language Analysis
SECTION 1. Section VE 1.02 is renumbered VE 1.02 (1e).
SECTION 2. Section
VE 1.02 (1) is created to define “accredited college or university." The proposed rule clarifies that only coursework completed at educational institutions that are accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education will be acceptable for continuing education hours.
SECTION 3. Section
VE 7.01 (5) is created to define “viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment." The proposed rule clarifies that viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment are those that are generally considered by the veterinary profession to be within the scope of current, acceptable standards of care.
SECTION 4. Section
VE 7.025 is created to require, with some exceptions, veterinarians to disclose all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment to clients.
SECTION 5. Section
VE 7.03 (2) (q) is created to state that veterinarians are required to document in patient records communications of information provided to clients relating to all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment.
SECTION 6. Section
VE 7.03 (3) (k) is created to state that veterinarians are required to document in patient records communications of information provided to clients relating to all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment.
SECTION 7. Section
VE 7.06 (23) is created to state that it shall be unprofessional conduct for a veterinarian to fail to inform a client about the availability of all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of each, as required under s.
VE 7.025.
SECTION 8. Section
VE 10.03 (4) (g) is created to clarify that a foreign veterinary medical or veterinary technician association, an accredited college or university, or a governmental agency that is, as determined by the board, comparable to a program provider listed under s.
VE 10.03 (4) (a) to
(f), may be approved as a continuing education course provider.
Comparison with Federal Regulation
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.
Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States
Minnesota: A rule on record keeping includes a list of what must be recorded. A rule on informed consent requires a client to be informed of treatment choices and alternatives, including an estimated cost of alternatives, prior to treatment. There is also language about the veterinarian assuming responsibility for clinical judgments and caretakers agreeing to follow the veterinarian's instructions.
Illinois: The statute includes language about the veterinarian assuming responsibility for clinical judgments and caretakers agreeing to follow the veterinarian's instructions. This provision is similar to Minnesota's law. A rule on recordkeeping includes a list of 10 items that must be included. Informed consent is one of them.
Iowa: Does not have provisions relating to informed consent/disclosure of certain information to clients regarding treatment options.
Michigan: Does not have provisions relating to informed consent/disclosure of certain information to clients regarding treatment options.
Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies
The Veterinary Examining Board reviewed the proposed rule change during open session at its meetings in 2006 and 2007. Professional expertise and opinions of board members were offered and discussed at the meetings. The chair of the board invited comment from a representative of the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association (WVMA), and the board consulted the Department of Regulation and Licensing's Division of Enforcement regarding the impact of the current rule on its ability to prosecute unprofessional practice cases relating to informed consent and recordkeeping. The division attorney explained how the current rule does not adequately ensure that clients receive communication from veterinarians regarding viable treatment alternatives, their risks and benefits, and that explicit language would aid in prosecutions and increase protection of the public.
Analysis to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Report
The requirement has no impact on the bookkeeping operations of veterinary clinics, most of which are small businesses. The proposed rule would not disproportionately impact small business veterinarians. The patient recordkeeping requirements for all veterinarians apply irrespective of practice size.
Section
227.137, Stats., requires an “agency" to prepare an economic impact report before submitting the proposed rule-making order to the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The Department of Regulation and Licensing is not included as an “agency" in this section.
Fiscal Estimate
The department estimates that the proposed rule will have no significant fiscal impact.
Anticipated Costs for Private Sector
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Effect on Small Business
These proposed rules were reviewed by the department's Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether the rules will have any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats. The Committee determined that the fiscal impact on small businesses would be minimal and is justified by the practice improvements required by the rule. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
larry.martin@drl.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 152, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935. Telephone: (608) 266-0495. Email:
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us.
Submission of and Deadline for Comments
Comments may be submitted to Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 152, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935, or by email at
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2007 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. VE 1.02 (1) is renumbered VE 1.02 (1e).
SECTION 2. VE 1.02 (1) is created to read:
VE 1.02 (1) “Accredited college or university" means an educational institution that is accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
SECTION 3. VE 7.01 (5) is created to read:
VE 7.01 (5) “Viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment" means diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment generally considered by the veterinary profession to be within the scope of current, acceptable standards of care.
SECTION 4. VE 7.025 is created to read:
VE 7.025 Disclosure of all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment. (1) Except as provided in sub. (2), a veterinarian shall inform a client about the availability of all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment, including the benefits and risks of each, in a manner sufficient to allow the client to make a prudent decision.
(2) A veterinarian is not required to inform a client about the availability of all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment, or about the benefits and risks of each, in any of the following instances:
(a) When the communication would involve providing detailed technical information relating to procedures that are inherent to a particular diagnostic procedure or mode of treatment.
(b) When the communication would involve providing information relating to diagnostic procedures or modes of treatment which are not viable or which are experimental.
(c) When a veterinarian refers a patient to another veterinarian, the referring veterinarian is not required to inform the client of all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures or modes of treatment that may be provided by the veterinarian to whom the patient is being referred.
(d) When the communication would involve providing information relating to diagnostic procedures or modes of treatment which involve extremely remote possibilities that might falsely or detrimentally alarm the client.
(e) When the communication would involve providing information beyond what a reasonably well-qualified veterinarian treating the same condition would know.
(f) When the client cannot be located.
(g) When the client informs the veterinarian that he or she is not interested in receiving information regarding all viable veterinary diagnostic procedures and modes of treatment.
