Scope Statements
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
Revises s.
Phar 7.09, relating to remote dispensing of prescription drugs and devices at certain facilities in Wisconsin.
Objective of the Rule
To establish standards for safe dispensing in remote locations, including security, accountability, pharmacist control, counseling, record keeping, and the ability to inspect, detect, and correct work.
Policy Analysis
Section
Phar 7.09, relating to automated dispensing systems, provides a kind of model for machine-based remote dispensing, though it does not include a counseling requirement and will need to be broadened to accommodate systems that are operated by pharmacy professionals and other health care workers.
Statutory Authority
Entities Affected by the Rule
The Pharmacy Examining Board, the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, pharmacies, pharmacists, health care workers, and facilities authorized in the Act to dispense remotely.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
None.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that 100 hours will be needed to promulgate the rule.
Regulation and Licensing
Subject
Revising ch.
RL 161, relating to the rules of certification for clinical substance abuse counselors under s.
RL 161.04 (3), Wis. Adm. Code.
Objective of the Rule
The objective of the proposed revision is to address the imminent cancellation of an examination used by the department to certify clinical substance abuse counselors. The department intends to eliminate the requirement that an applicant for clinical substance abuse counselor certification submit evidence to the department of the passage and successful completion of the International Certification & Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC) case presentation method (CPM) interview and further provide the department with the capacity to approve an alternate examination instrument. The CPM is an oral examination designed by the IC&RC and administered by the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Policy Analysis
The department's rules for certification of clinical substance abuse counselors require the completion and passage of the International Certification & Reciprocity Consortium (ICRC) “Case Presentation Method" oral examination (also referred to as the “Oral Exam"). The IC&RC, in a memorandum to member boards, which includes the Department of Regulation and Licensing, advised they were revising their written exam to include written practice elements for measurement of clinical AODA treatment skills and were discontinuing the Oral Exam as of June 1, 2008. As the department's rules specify the passage of this exam with no alternative exam specified in rule, the department must consider the elimination of the exam. The IC&RC has offered an alternative, which is to sign an indemnity agreement, which would allow member boards to continue to use the oral exam after the IC&RC's deadline date. In exchange, member boards would be bound by a confidentiality agreement (regarding examination elements), would agree to hold the IC&RC harmless on validity challenges and would provide a disclaimer to applicants that the exam is no longer recognized by the IC&RC.
Statutory Authority
Section
227.11 (2) and subchapter VII of chapter 440, Stats.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Oral examination candidates (those actively applying for certification as a clinical substance abuse counselor).
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
160 hours
Revenue
Subject
Revises ch.
Tax 8, relating to wine collectors and small winery cooperative wholesalers.
Objective of the Rule
The objectives of the proposed rule are to provide for registration of wine collectors, establish standards of eligibility for registration as a wine collector, specify the form and manner of notice required for the sale of wine from one wine collector to another, and administer and enforce the statutory requirements pertaining to small winery cooperative wholesalers.
Policy Analysis
Existing policies are as set forth in the rules. No new policies are being proposed, other than to reflect law changes and court decisions. If the rules are not changed, they will be incorrect in that they will not reflect current law or current Department policy.
Statutory Authority
Entities Affected by the Rule
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The Code of Federal Regulations,
27 CFR 31.28 states: “Any person who sells or offers for sale distilled spirits, wines, or beer, in quantities of 20 wine gallons (75.7 liters) or more, to the same person at the same time, shall be presumed and held to be a wholesale dealer in liquors or a wholesale dealer in beer, as the case may be, unless such person shows by satisfactory evidence that such sale, or offer for sale, was made to a person other than a dealer."
The Department's proposed rule will provide that individuals registered as wine collectors with the Department and meeting the standards established by the rule may annually sell wine that the collector has held for at least eight years. The individual would not be required to hold a retailer's license or wholesaler's permit to conduct this sale in Wisconsin.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The department estimates it will take approximately 200 hours to develop this rule order.
Transportation
Subject
Revises ch.
Trans 206, relating to the Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP).
Objective of the Rule
The proposed rule interprets and administers procedures for assisting in the improvement of seriously deteriorating roads under local jurisdiction, under Section
86.31, Stats. Section
86.31 has been revised in
1999 Wis. Act 9 (eff. October 29, 1999), in
2001 Wis. Act 16 (eff. September 1, 2001), in
2003 Wis. Act 33 (eff. July 26, 2003), and in
2005 Wis. Act 25 (eff. July 27, 2005).
Policy Analysis
Section
86.31 (3g), Stats., authorizes a discretionary allocation from LRIP to fund a competitive, county highway improvement program, similar to the existing discretionary program for high-cost town roads. It specified that eligible projects must have a total estimated cost of at least $250,000. The current LRIP matching requirements will apply to this component. The proposed rule will create procedures and criteria for the selection of projects.
Section
86.31 (3r), Stats., authorizes a discretionary allocation from LRIP to fund a competitive, municipal street improvement program, similar to the existing discretionary programs for high-cost town roads and county highways. It specified that eligible projects must have a total estimated cost of at least $250,000. The current LRIP matching requirements will apply to this component. The proposed rule will create procedures and criteria for the selection of projects.
The proposed rule will modify s. Trans. 206.03 (14) to indicate, “…This subsection does not apply to recipients of TRIP-D, or MSIP-D allocations."
Currently, s.
86.31, Stats., requires that all LRIP projects be awarded based on competitive bids and be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. However, it also makes provision for any city, village, or town that does not receive a responsible bid on a project to contract with the county for the improvement. The proposed rule incorporates the new bidding requirements for town projects including the criteria that specify when a project may be awarded to a county and criteria for the selection of the lowest responsible bidder.
1999 Wis. Act 9 deletes the above provision for town projects only and requires an amendment to the rule to incorporate new bidding requirements for town projects. It also requires the inclusion of criteria and procedures for determining when a contract for a project under the town road improvement programs may be awarded to a county, including, at a minimum:
•
A requirement that a written and sealed pre-bid estimate of the cost of the improvement, including the source of the estimate, be prepared before the opening of the bids.
•
A requirement that all bids may be rejected and the contract awarded to a county for the improvement if the lowest bid exceeds the cost of the cost estimate by at least 10% and the town board notifies the lowest two bidders or, if only one bid was received, the single bidder, to provide information on the accuracy of the cost estimate.
•
A requirement that the amount of the contract with a county for the improvement be at least 10% below the lowest bid received for the improvement.
•
A provision that permits re-bidding if the amount of the proposed contract with a county for the improvement is less than 10% below the lowest bid received for the improvement.
The amendment above relating to bidding requirements is specific to town projects only and is only valid when a town rejects a bid based on price.
Currently, s.
86.31, Stats., allows county trunk highway improvements to be performed by county highway departments subject to restrictions. The proposed rule specifies the criteria to determine when it will be cost-effective for a county to do the work, and procedures for review of disputes relating to whether proposed work to be done by county highway departments is cost-effective.
1999 Wis. Act 9 eliminated the provision that requires each county highway improvement district committee to ensure compliance with the provisions related to the amount of work performed by county highway departments, and now requires these committees to:
•
Review each project proposed to be done by a county highway department and determine if it would be cost effective for the county highway department to perform the work; and
•
Approve the proposed project before its being performed by the county highway department.
1999 Wis. Act 9 modified the membership of county highway improvement district committees to specify that they shall be composed of the highway commissioners from each county in the district, instead of not more than five county executives, or county board chairpersons in counties that do not have county executives, or their designees.
The 2004-2005 LRIP Study Group recommended a number of changes to the local roads improvement program. The proposed rule reflects these current business rules. Specifically, these additions include:
•
Defining and providing guidance regarding programming caps implemented under TRIP and MSIPLT: The number of Town Road and Municipal Street Improvement Program projects for cities and villages with less than 20,000 in population is capped each biennium at one-half of the number of eligible municipalities within a county. One additional project is allowed for any county with an odd number of municipalities. The policy encourages a competitive, needs-based approach for selecting projects, resulting in larger and fewer TRIP and MSIPLT projects.
•
Sunset on Funds: This policy is intended to ensure the timely use of program funds. All entitlement and discretionary funds must be used within three biennia. All projects programmed with 2004-2005 funds (or prior biennia) must be reimbursed by the end of state fiscal year 2009 (June 30, 2009). All projects programmed with 2006-2007 funds must be reimbursed by the end of state fiscal year 2011 (June 30, 2011).
•
Substitutions: Add language specifying that only one substitution will be allowed for each entitlement project.
•
Program Review and Program Sanctions: Add definitions for program review and program sanctions, describe the program review process and specify program sanctions agreed to by the LRIP Study Committee.
Several other additions and modifications to the administrative rule are recommended to maintain the integrity of the program's initial intent, which is to improve seriously deteriorating roads. These include:
•
Adding language to specify programming caps will be applied under CHIP (the methodology will need to be determined, since the methodology applied to TRIP and MSIPLT will not work for this component).
•
Clarifying the definition for “Eligible Project" in s.
Trans 206.02 (17) to reflect that improvements should be complete projects that result in a final improvement with a 10-year design life, and specify that pulling out a part or parts of a complete improvement project is not allowed under the program.
•
Clarifying s. Trans. 206.03 (9) with regard to real estate transactions to state that utility costs associated with real estate transactions (such as relocation of utilities) are not eligible costs.
Other updates may be needed, including:
•
Updating s.
Trans 206.03 (10) (b) as it relates to engineering certification to reflect increased project costs to correspond with the applicable statute.
Statutory Authority
Entities Affected by the Rule
In addition to WisDOT, the following entities may be affected:
•
Wisconsin Counties Association
•
Wisconsin County Highway Association
•
Wisconsin Towns Association
•
League of Wisconsin Municipalities
•
Wisconsin Alliance of Cities
•
Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association
Comparison with Federal Regulations
No federal regulations govern the Local Roads Improvement Program.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
Approximately 200 hours.
