Universal service definitions, the administration of the USF (assessments, an administrator, and a Universal Service Fund Council), and universal service programs intended to address needs including those of low-income customers, customers in high-cost areas, and customers with disabilities, are specified in ch.
PSC 160.
As recognized in the initial USF legislation, universal service is a dynamic issue. The commission will consider changes to the rules to reflect changing circumstances that may be identified throughout the rulemaking process. While all the specifics will not be known until the review of the existing rules is underway, this rulemaking will look at modifications, additions, and improvements to the rules to make administration more efficient and to make program operations more effective given experience to date.
A prior USF rulemaking was withdrawn by act of law on December 31, 2010. There were issues that were contentious and time for promulgation ran out. This rulemaking is primarily intended to promulgate those portions of the previously proposed rule that are less contentious, such as program specific updates. Changes to be considered in this new rulemaking will not address matters related to deployment of data service capabilities (data transmission speed) or substantive modifications related to FCC guidelines on Eligible Telecommunications Carrier qualifications and filing requirements. These were the most contentious of the issues in the earlier, now closed rulemaking. The primary changes to be addressed in this new rulemaking are aimed at administrative efficiencies and improvements of programmatic operations.
Statutory Authority
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The commission estimates that approximately 300 hours of commission staff time will be required in this rulemaking. The commission will work with the Universal Service Fund Council as the proposed rule is developed.
Entities Affected by the Rule
All telecommunications providers may be affected by changes to this rule.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is both a state USF and a federal USF. The state and federal funds and programs are complementary rather than duplicative.
“Eligible Telecommunications Carriers" (ETCs) are designated by the commission and are, thereafter, eligible for funding from the federal USF and for certain funding from the state USF. ETC status was created by the FCC, and codified in 47 U.S.C. § 214 (e) (2). Under FCC rules, state commissions are responsible for designating eligible providers as ETCs1.
Designation as an ETC is required if a provider is to receive federal USF funding. ETC designation is also required to receive funding from some, but not all, state universal service programs. The FCC established a set of minimum criteria that all ETCs must meet. These are codified in the federal rules
2. The 1996 Telecommunications Act states that, “A State may adopt regulations not inconsistent with the Commission's rules to preserve and advance universal service."
3 A court upheld the states' right to impose additional conditions on ETCs in
Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC,
183 F.3d 393, 418 (5
th Cir. 1999). Therefore, while states must examine the federal requirements, they are allowed to create additional requirements. Wisconsin has done so.
The federal USF provides funding to ETCs that are found to serve high-cost areas. That funding is to be used to help cover the costs of expanding infrastructure into those areas. Doing so should help ensure that rates in those areas stay lower since rates need not provide the funds for that expansion. The Wisconsin USF provides reimbursement to providers that offer credits to customers when rates are higher than as designated in s.
PSC 160.09.
The federal USF also includes Lifeline and Link-Up programs to assist low-income customers. The Wisconsin Lifeline and Link-Up programs are structured to complement the federal program and to take advantage of the available federal Lifeline and Link-Up funds.
The federal USF assessment applies to all carriers, including wireless carriers, and is assessed based on interstate revenues. The state USF assessment applies to all providers, including wireless providers, and is assessed based on intrastate revenues. Wisconsin exempts certain providers from assessment, such as those with under $200,000 in intrastate revenues.
There are parts of the federal USF (e.g., the E-Rate program for schools) that do not have a counterpart in the state USF rules. Likewise, some of the state USF rules (e.g., the program to assist persons with disabilities – s.
PSC 160.071) address matters not included in the federal USF law or rules.
3 47 U.S.C. § 254(f).
Regulation and Licensing —
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
Revises section
Phar 7.055, relating to the transfer of individual prescription orders from one pharmacy to another.
Objective of the Rule
To allow pharmacists licensed in Wisconsin to delegate the function of transferring prescriptions to pharmacy interns to the extent permissible under federal law.
Policy Analysis
The administrative rules in Wisconsin regarding the transfer of prescription orders from one pharmacy to another currently specify that all such transfers must be communicated between two licensed pharmacists only. However, the federal law applies that requirement to the transfer of prescriptions for controlled substances only. The proposed amendment to Wis. Admin. Code §
7.055, would repeal application of the pharmacist-to-pharmacist only prescription transfer requirement for prescription drugs that are not scheduled controlled substances.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The federal law on prescription transfers is located at
21 C.F.R. s. 1306.25. Section 1306.25, 21 C.F.R. governs the transfer of prescriptions for Schedules III, IV, and V controlled substances
1, and provides that such transfers may be for refill purposes only, and that they must be communicated between two licensed pharmacists only. No federal law on the transfer of prescriptions for non-scheduled drugs exists.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Licensed pharmacists that will be able to delegate the prescription transfer function to their pharmacist interns, and pharmacy interns.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
120 hours.
1Schedule I controlled substances have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; Schedule II substances cannot be refilled.
Transportation
Subject
Objective of the Rule
2009 Wis. Act 28 created a mandatory insurance law in Wisconsin and set the minimum insurance requirements at $15,000, $50,000 and $100,000 for property damage, injury to a person, and injuries to multiple persons in an accident respectively. Wis. Stat. ss.
344.26 (3) and
344.01 (2) (am) and
(d). After November 1, 2011, the minimum mandatory insurance amounts drop to $10,000, $25,000 and $50,000. Wis. Stat. ss.
344.26 (3) and
344.01 (2) (d) as amended by
2011 Wis. Act 14 s.
4.
2009 Wis. Act 28 also provided for regular adjustments to those minimum mandatory insurance limits through an indexing system tied to the consumer price index.
2011 Wisconsin Act 14 repealed that indexing mechanism.
Current Ch.
Trans 100 reflects the minimum mandatory limit amounts established under
2009 Wis. Act 28 and the indexing system for adjustments to those limits. This rulemaking will repeal references to the indexing system and amend the minimum mandatory insurance limits to match those set by
2011 Wis. Act 14.
Policy Analysis
This regulatory change involves no policy decisions by the Department of Transportation. This rulemaking will simply amend the existing administrative rule to conform to the new statutory requirements imposed by
2011 Wis. Act 14.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
None.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Insurance companies and insured persons.
Statutory Authority
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
40 hours.
