•
Clarify and update rules related to structural pesticide applications.
•
Clarify and update rules related to residential chemigation systems.
•
Clarify and update rules to ensure consistency with other rules, such as pesticide bulk storage rules under ATCP 33.
•
Make other changes to clarify and update rules.
Policy Alternatives
No change. If DATCP takes no action, current rules will remain in effect. However, the current rules are outdated and inconsistent in certain respects. This rule will address new pesticide practices and uses, and harmonize regulations that are currently somewhat inconsistent.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the primary federal law governing pesticide regulation (other federal laws, such as the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, also apply). FIFRA is administered by EPA. Most pesticide products must be registered by EPA, except that states may register certain products without EPA registration to meet “special local needs." Pesticides must be registered for specific uses, and must be used according to EPA-approved label directions. States have independent authority to regulate the distribution, handling and use of pesticides, provided that they do not contradict federal regulations under FIFRA.
Entities Affected by the Rule
This rule may affect the following persons and entities, among others:
•
Pesticide manufacturers, labelers, dealers, handlers and commercial applicators.
•
Farmers.
•
Homeowners and residential tenants (for example, those affected by structural pesticide applications, homeowner chemigation applications, and aquatic applications).
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.5 FTE staff annually to develop this rule. This includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating advisory committee meetings, holding public hearings and communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Subject
Revises Chapter
ATCP 30 (may renumber and reorganize this rule), relating to atrazine pesticide applications.
Objective of the Rule
Regulate the use of atrazine pesticides to protect groundwater and assure compliance with Wisconsin's Groundwater Law. Update current rule to reflect groundwater-sampling results related to atrazine obtained during the past year. Reorganize current rule to accommodate any new or expanded prohibition area (PA).
Policy Analysis
DATCP must regulate the use of pesticides to assure compliance with groundwater standards under ch.
160, Stats. Groundwater standards are established by the Department of Natural Resources under ch.
NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code. DNR has established a groundwater enforcement standard of 3
mg/liter for atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites.
DATCP must prohibit atrazine uses that result in groundwater contamination levels that exceed the DNR enforcement standard under s.
160.25, Stats. DATCP must prohibit atrazine use in the area where groundwater contamination has occurred unless DATCP determines to a reasonable certainty, based on the greater weight of credible evidence, that alternative measures will achieve compliance with the DNR enforcement standard.
Currently, under ch.
ATCP 30, Wis. Adm. Code, the use of atrazine is prohibited in 101 PAs (approximately 1,200,000 acres), including large portions of the Lower Wisconsin River Valley, Dane County and Columbia County. The current rules also restrict atrazine use rates and handling practices, including the timing of applications, on a statewide basis. The statewide restrictions are designed to minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, as required under s.
160.25, Stats.
Over the next year, DATCP may identify additional wells containing atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites at and above the current DNR enforcement standard. In order to comply with ch.
160, Stats., DATCP must take further action to prohibit or regulate atrazine use in the areas where these wells are located. DATCP proposes to amend ch.
ATCP 30, Wis. Adm. Code to add PAs or take other appropriate regulatory action in response to any new groundwater findings.
Policy Alternatives
No change. If DATCP takes no action, current rules will remain in effect. But that will not adequately protect groundwater or meet DATCP's statutory obligations in areas (if any) where there may be new groundwater contamination findings.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Pesticides and pesticide labels must be registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA"). Persons may not use pesticides in a manner inconsistent with the federal label. The current federal label for atrazine advises that atrazine should not be used on permeable soils with groundwater near the soil surface. Wisconsin has clearer, more definite restrictions on atrazine use, based on actual findings of groundwater contamination in this state.
EPA is proposing federal rules that would require states to create pesticide management plans for pesticides that have the potential to contaminate groundwater. Wisconsin's current regulatory scheme for atrazine pesticides would likely comply with the proposed federal rules.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Residents whose private wells are located in a newly proposed or expanded PA would be affected by the proposed rule. Atrazine users in a newly proposed or expanded PA would also be affected by the proposed rule. Dealers, distributors and manufacturers of atrazine who service areas covered by new or expanded PAs may be affected by a reduction in atrazine sales. Commercial pesticide applicators must be aware of atrazine PAs in order to avoid illegal applications. The proposed action will not have any effect on consumers.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.5 FTE staff to develop this rule. This includes investigation, drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating advisory committee meetings, holding public hearings and communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors Examining Board
Subject
Amends s.
A-E 3.05 (2), relating to the current requirements for licensee candidates to sit for an architectural examination.
Objective of the Rule
To allow candidates with a National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) accredited degree program and a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) established Intern Development Program (IDP) training record to take the examination upon graduation. This will allow some candidates to obtain licensure earlier as some candidates take longer than one year to complete the multiple part examination.
Policy Analysis
Currently, licensee candidates can only take the examination within one year of completion of their education and experience requirements. It may be difficult for some licensee candidates to complete this multiple part examination within one year, which then results in a delay in obtaining a license.
This proposed rule would amend this examination entrance requirement to allow candidates to take the examination upon graduation from a National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) accredited degree program and obtaining a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) established Intern Development Program (IDP) training record. The candidate would still have to meet all current requirements, but would be allowed to take the examination earlier under this criteria.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
This is not an area which is regulated by federal law or subject to any proposed federal legislation. The standards for state licensure are regulated by each state.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Architect licensee candidates.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
100 hours.
Barbering and Cosmetology Examining Board
Subject
Revises Chapter
BC 7, relating to the examination process.
Objective of the Rule
To revise and update various provisions of ch.
BC 7, as deemed necessary, to update the examination provisions so they adequately address current national and state examination practices.
The provisions of ch.
BC 7, “Examinations," are outdated and are no longer effective based upon the current manner in which examinations are typically administered. The goal is to create a rule change to ch.
BC 7 to amend, modify or redact various provisions so as to update the rule provisions so they appropriately and adequately reflect the present examination process and bring the rules into conformance with current national and state practice.
Policy Analysis
Currently, ch.
BC 7 calls for methods and requirements that can no longer be met based upon national and state changes in how, and by whom, examinations are conducted. Specifically, there are provisions that call for examination reviews upon examination failure that cannot be accomplished due to the proprietary interests examination vendors have in the examinations. Similarly, there are provisions that require an immediate conference by two examiners to discuss the suspected failing examinee's performance, as well, that a written description for the failure be provided. These requirements prove difficult to accomplish and/or otherwise do not jive with most national and state examination practices.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
This is not an area which is regulated by federal law or subject to any proposed federal legislation. The standards for state licensure are regulated by each state.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Barbering and cosmetology licensees.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
160 hours
Public Instruction
Subject
Revises s.
PI 34.34 (1) and
(2), relating to charter school instructional staff licenses and permits and s.
PI 8.01 (2), relating to charter school licensure under the school district standards.
Objective of the Rule
These modifications are primarily related to the highly-qualified teacher (HQT) provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Most pertinent, Wisconsin's existing procedure for granting a charter school instructional staff license focuses solely on whether an applicant holds any kind of teaching license and does not address subject-matter expertise. As a result, it is quite possible that holders of Wisconsin's current charter school instructional staff licenses are not “highly qualified" under NCLB. In addition, school districts apply for charter school instructional staff licenses on behalf of individuals. As a result, it is possible that these licenses may be acquired for an individual without the individual's knowledge.
Policy Analysis
Applicants must be highly qualified under the NCLB core academic subjects, including English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history and geography. To be highly qualified, an applicant must have a major or minor in the assigned core academic subject, or have passed the Praxis II content exam approved by the state superintendent for that subject area.
A school district may continue to request a charter school instructional staff license or permit on behalf of an individual. However, individuals will be required to submit a completed application for the license or permit. In addition, specific information relating to an applicant's specific teaching assignment and his or her qualifications will be required as part of the application process.
Policy Alternatives
If the department does not make these changes, it could lose funding under the NCLB.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
See Objective of the Rule.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Charter schools.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The amount of time needed for rule development by department staff and the amount of other resources necessary are indeterminable. The time needed to create the rule language itself will be minimal. However, the time involved with guiding the rule through the required rule promulgation process is fairly significant. The rule process takes more than six months to complete.
Veterans Affairs
