Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 673, 1/31/2012

Rule-Making Notices

Notice of Hearing

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

CR 12-003

(DATCP DOCKET # 08-R-08)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the state of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule to revise Chapter ATCP 29, relating to pesticide use and control.

Hearing Information

DATCP will hold two public hearings at the times and locations shown below.

Date:   Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Time:   1:00 P.M.-3:00 P.M.

Location:   Outagamie County UW Extension
  Room ABC
  3365 W. Brewster St.
  Appleton, WI 54914

Date:   Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Time:   1:00 P.M.-3:00 P.M.

Location:   Department of Agriculture, Trade and         Consumer Protection
  Board Room (Room 106) 1st Floor
  2811 Agriculture Drive
  Madison, WI 53718-6777

Hearing-impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by February 7, 2012, by writing to Michael Murray, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at [phone]. The hearing facility is handicap accessible.

Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments

DATCP invites the public to attend the hearing and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearings, the hearing record will remain open until March 30, 2012, for additional written comments. Comments may be sent to the Division of Agricultural Resource Management at the address below, by email to
[e-mail], or online http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

To provide comments or concerns relating to small business, please contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, by emailing to [e-mail], or by telephone at [phone].

Copies of Proposed Rule

You can obtain a free copy of this rule by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling [phone] or emailing [e-mail]. Copies will be available at the hearings. To view the proposed rule online, go to: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection (DATCP) regulates the sale and use of pesticides in this state. This rule modifies current rules related to pesticides. Among other things, this rule:

•   Repeals the provision that veterinarians and animal technicians who use pesticides for animal treatment be required to obtain individual commercial applicator licenses. This change will make the current rule consistent with a recent law change that removes the requirement for veterinary clinics to obtain special veterinary clinic pesticide use permits.

•   Modifies an existing pesticide applicator certification category to include pesticide applications to natural areas, which is of interest to those committed to rehabilitating or maintaining natural areas and also is an area of business growth for pesticide applicators.

•   Allows regulated persons to give certain notices and submit certain permit applications by electronic transmission to customers, if customers choose to receive important pesticide safety information in that way. It also reduces paperwork for some businesses by eliminating duplicative recordkeeping requirements and clarifies that certain paperwork will be submitted to the department primarily by electronic means.

•   Updates current rules related to structural pesticide applications, including rules related to perimeter barrier applications and application notices.

•   Harmonizes current rules with existing rules related to fertilizer and pesticide bulk storage.

•   Updates current rules related to non-agricultural chemigation systems. The rule also provides minimum requirements for the installation and use of urban pesticide misting systems.

•   Creates labeling requirements for pesticide bait stations that are set out by commercial applicators, such as rodent bait stations, which often are placed outdoors in areas that are accessible to animals and the public.

•   Modernizes the rules related to spill containment and spill containment surfaces. The rule also clarifies that spill containment surface repairs shall be made according to good engineering practices and manufacturer specifications.

•   Removes obsolete pesticide license fee provisions to avoid confusion when reading the rule.

•   Updates the administrative rule note regarding current worker protection provisions to remove outdated requirements, which are set by federal regulations.

•   Makes a number of other minor drafting changes designed to update, clarify and correct current rules.

Statutes interpreted

Sections 94.645 (2) and (3), 94.67, 94.676, 94.69 (1), 94.703, 94.704, and 94.705 , Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 93.07 (1), 94.69 (1), and 94.705 (2), Stats.

Rule content

This rule updates administrative rules relating to pesticide use and control. Some of the key changes include the following:

Veterinary Clinics Applying Pesticides

2009 Wis. Act 139 repealed a statutory provision that required veterinary clinics to have an annual DATCP permit to use, repackage or prescribe pesticides as part of a veterinary treatment. This rule modifies current rules to reflect that statutory change. This rule also clarifies that veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians are not required to have an individual commercial applicator license in order to use a pesticide as part of a veterinary treatment.

Applying Pesticides to Natural Areas; Applicator Certification

Under current rules, commercial pesticide applicators must be certified for competence in relevant application categories. This rule expands the current turf and landscape category to include applications to natural areas. Applicators applying pesticides to natural areas must have relevant knowledge related to the restoration and maintenance of natural areas and the treatment of common pests affecting natural areas.

Pesticide Mixing and Loading Sites; Spill Containment

DATCP recently updated its rules in Ch. ATCP 33 related to fertilizer and pesticide bulk storage. This rule updates related pesticide rules in Ch. ATCP 29 to make them consistent with Ch. ATCP 33, including construction and maintenance standards for pesticide mixing and loading sites. The updated standards include standards related to construction materials, sumps, catch basins, spill containment and cleanup.

Urban Pesticide Misting System

Under the existing rule, chemigation systems generally are defined as systems that mix pesticides with irrigation water and apply the pesticide irrigation water mixture to plants. These types of pesticide application systems must meet certain standards and posting requirements. Existing standards and posting requirements apply to chemigation systems used in either agricultural or nonagricultural settings.

New forms of non-agricultural chemigation systems are being installed at residential and commercial sites for the purpose of controlling pests such as mosquitoes. These urban pesticide misting systems are considered to be a type of chemigation but do not use irrigation water and are not used to apply water to lands, crops or plants. These chemigation systems disperse a mixture of pesticides and water into the air in the form of a mist to kill or control pests such as mosquitoes. In this rule, the definition of “non-agricultural chemication system" includes urban pesticide misting systems and establishes standards and posting requirements specifically for these systems.

Perimeter Barrier Applications

This rule creates a definition for “perimeter barrier applications" and establishes that these are pesticide applications made on or within ten feet of a building or structure to discourage pests. The rule also clarifies the notification requirements for these applications.

Worker Protection Provisions

Under the existing rule and in a Note to s. ATCP 29.61, Wis. Adm. Code, DATCP summarized worker protection requirements established by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that are on the labels of pesticides or simply referenced on other pesticide labels. Some of the requirements in the Note are outdated. In this rule, DATCP notifies persons that worker protection requirements established by the EPA may be obtained at an EPA internet site or that DATCP will provide, upon request, a summary of those requirements.

Electronic Notifications

Many of the notification requirements throughout the rule require written notification to customers. In this proposed rule, DATCP is explicitly permitting the use of electronic notifications if the customer agrees to that method of notification. DATCP is also allowing persons to apply for special pesticide permits via electronic methods in order to decrease the time it takes to submit, review and issue these permits. DATCP is also clarifying the rules related to the landscape registry to allow explicitly for electronic registration and publication.

Pesticide Bait Stations

Many bait stations used by commercial applicators containing a pesticide to control rodents are not labeled or have labeling that becomes unreadable due to being outside and exposed to the elements. The concern is that human or non-target species exposure to unknown products may delay timely medical assistance. This rule establishes labeling requirements for bait stations containing a pesticide to control rodents and used by commercial pesticide applicators. The exterior of the bait stations must be labeled with the company responsible for maintaining the bait station and the EPA registration number of the pesticide(s) in the bait station. This information must be readily accessible and remain legible while the bait station is in service.

Other Changes

The rule makes a number of other minor drafting changes designed to update, clarify and correct current rules, including deleting outdated time frames and fee changes.

Federal and Surrounding State Programs

Federal programs

The EPA regulates pesticides at the federal level under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and through the use of pesticide product labels. The EPA has delegated authority to Wisconsin to enforce federal pesticide regulations and to assure proper use and handling of pesticides in this state. EPA recently established new regulations related to bait stations for ten rodenticides.

Surrounding state programs

Surrounding states, including Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa are also delegated authority by EPA to enforce federal pesticide regulations. Each state also has state-specific pesticide regulations, similar to Wisconsin's. The state-specific regulations must be at least as stringent as EPA's, but may be more or less stringent than Wisconsin's, depending on the topic.

Chemigation

Nearly all states have chemigation laws, including Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota. EPA has minimum standards in place for states that do not have their own regulations, such as Iowa. Minnesota's chemigation regulations are more stringent than Wisconsin's and require applicators obtain a chemigation permit annually before chemigating. This rule updates Wisconsin's chemigation laws to reflect emerging industry practices.

Urban pesticide misting systems are an emerging application method. Surrounding states have existing regulations that govern the use of these systems (including label, drift, and pesticide applicator certification requirements), although they do not apply only to this specific type of application. Wisconsin's proposed requirements to monitor windspeed and prevent time-delayed applications complement label requirements and will help ensure applicators avoid serious pesticide use violations and help protect human and companion animal health.

Natural Areas Certification

None of the surrounding states has a separate certification category for natural areas applications. Surrounding states include these applicators in the turf and landscape category, which is what is proposed in this rule. Surrounding states also include these applicators in the field and vegetable crop category, when the natural areas are in a grassland-type setting.

Bait Station Labeling

Many states are considering modifying their bait station requirements in response to EPA's new rodenticide regulations. Iowa does not require bait station labeling but does require notification to the Department of Agriculture prior to use of certain hazardous rodenticides, which is more stringent than what this rule proposes. Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan do not require exterior labeling of bait stations at this time. Other states, including California, New York and Tennessee, require exterior labeling of rodenticide bait stations similar to what Wisconsin is proposing.

Electronic Information

Surrounding states allow electronic transmittal of information between commercial application businesses and customers, as Wisconsin is proposing.

Fiscal Impact

This rule will not have a significant state or local fiscal impact.

Economic Impact Analysis

This rule was developed in consultation with an advisory committee that included a diverse cross-section of affected industry, consumers, and government officials. The advisory committee did not find that this rule will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs or the overall economic competitiveness of the state. The committee endorsed the provisions of this rule, which are designed to update, clarify and modernize the existing rule. The department does not anticipate any significant expenses imposed upon the regulated community as a result of these changes.

Business Impact

This rule updates current rules related to pesticide use and control. This rule modifies and clarifies existing rule language to facilitate understanding, compliance, and efficiency. This rule also protects human health and the environment.

This rule may have minimal compliance costs for affected pesticide applicators, pesticide application businesses, or the general public. However, this rule will not have a significant effect on local markets, on the sale or distribution of pesticide products, or on the overall economy of this state.

Pesticide applicators choosing to obtain natural area certification may experience minimal additional costs every five years to purchase a new training manual ($45). Many commercial application businesses cover the cost of the training manual for their employees. The average cost per year for the manual is $9. The restoration of natural areas is considered to be a growth area for business and may positively impact pesticide businesses through increased revenue.

Pesticide application businesses may experience cost savings as a result of clarifying existing regulations, improving regulatory consistency and modifying administrative requirements, including the ability to provide certain notices and submit certain permit applications by electronic means.

Businesses that are not currently labeling their bait stations may have some minimal economic costs to comply with the bait station labeling requirement. Costs may include purchasing stickers or another bait station labeling system (e.g. “luggage tags") and personnel time to fill out the label. Businesses will have a number of cost-effective ways to meet this requirement, including the ability to design their own or choose from among a wide-variety of labeling systems.

Businesses should not have any direct costs to comply with the non-agricultural chemigation and urban pesticide misting system requirements. Few, if any, pesticide application businesses in Wisconsin currently are known to be using these application systems. If pesticide application businesses do decide to sell these systems in the future, costs to comply with these regulations could be included in the initial cost of the system.

Because Ch. ATCP 33, Wis. Adm. Code was revised in 2006, many businesses are already in compliance with the spill containment and sump requirements. Those businesses not required to comply with Ch. ATCP 33 may have some minor costs to comply if a spill containment surface fails and a repair would be inadequate. If a new spill containment surface is required, and the facility is not already regulated under Ch. ATCP 33, Wis. Adm. Code., there will be some incremental costs to comply with the proposed requirements, which now prohibit some materials (e.g. asphalt) that were previously allowed. These materials are now prohibited because they have been prone to failure and unable to contain spills.

To provide comments or concerns relating to small business, please contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, by emailing to [e-mail], or by telephone at [phone].

Environmental Assessment

The majority of these rule changes are administrative in nature and are not expected to affect the environment. These administrative changes include the removal of the administrative rule licensing requirements for veterinarians and animal technicians due to a recent law change, clarifying an administrative rule note describing the worker protection standard (which is set by federal regulations), harmonizing this rule with Ch. ATCP 33 (Bulk Storage of Pesticides and Fertilizers), enabling more efficient communication between pesticide application businesses and customers and a more efficient permit application process, removing duplicative recordkeeping requirements, and removing obsolete rule provisions, including references to past fee holidays and veterinary clinic permits (already deleted in statute). The substance of these rule changes will not directly affect the natural environment but may reduce duplicative recordkeeping and the unnecessary use of paper by pesticide businesses and the department.

The addition of the turf and landscape pesticide applicator certification category to include natural areas may have a positive environmental impact because it facilitates the rehabilitation or preservation of natural areas. Expertise by pesticide applicators could lead to a reduction in the harm to native plants during the removal of (non-native) invasive plants, which ensures that the adverse effects to these natural areas are minimized.

This rule updates the regulations on chemigation to include non-agricultural chemigation systems and urban pesticide misting systems (a type of non-agricultural chemigation system). While these systems are not widely used in Wisconsin at this time, underground irrigation systems and urban pesticide misting systems are being installed more frequently in residential settings in many states (often to control mosquitoes). Chapter ATCP 29 already includes regulations on agricultural chemigation systems, such as backflow prevention devices to prevent contamination of groundwater by pesticides. This proposed rule will extend those environmental protections to non-agricultural chemigation systems that may use underground irrigation systems. Reasonable regulations on these systems are needed to prevent harm to humans, non-target wildlife species, and groundwater (drinking water) contamination.

The proposed rule also will require exterior labeling of bait stations. Bait stations often contain highly toxic rodenticides, which can be deadly to children, pets, and non-target wildlife if accidentally ingested. Bait station labeling will maintain a more safe environment by ensuring veterinarians, homeowners, and others will have the information they need to respond rapidly and appropriately if non-target animals or individuals accidently ingest pesticides from bait stations.

This proposed rule updates the current rules related to spill containment and the repair of spill containment surfaces. This rule is expected to protect the public, soil and groundwater from pesticide contamination.

Notice of Hearing

Revenue

CR 12-006

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to section 71.255 (6) (bm) 4., Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing to consider permanent rules revising sections Tax 2.60 and 2.61, relating to pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards.

Hearing Information

The hearing will be held:

Date:   Monday, February 13, 2012

Time:   9:00 A.M.

Location:   State Revenue Building
  Events Room
  2135 Rimrock Road
  Madison, WI 53713

Handicap access is available at the hearing location.

Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and may make an oral presentation. It is requested that written comments reflecting the oral presentation be given to the department at the hearing. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person listed below no later than February 13, 2012, and will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.

Dale Kleven

Department of Revenue

Mail Stop 6-40

2135 Rimrock Road

P.O. Box 8933

Madison, WI 53708-8933

Telephone: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Analysis by the Department of Revenue

Statutes interpreted

Sections 71.255 (6) (bm), 71.26 (4) (a) and (b), and 71.45 (4) (a) and (b), Stats.

Statutory authority

Section 71.255 (6) (bm) 4., Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Section 71.255 (6) (bm) 4., Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to administer the provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 concerning the treatment of pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards under combined reporting.

Related statute or rule

There are no other applicable statutes or rules.

Plain language analysis

This proposed rule prescribes the method that members of the same combined group must use to share net business losses with other members of the same commonly controlled group for net business losses incurred prior to January 1, 2009, and not fully used before January 1, 2012, for purposes of s. 71.255 (6) (bm), Stats. It also provides clarity regarding the 15 year and 20 year net business loss carryforwards for purposes of ss. 71.26 (4) (a) and (b) and 71.45 (4) (a) and (b), Stats.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois is the only adjacent state that allows net business loss carryforwards to be shared among combined group members. Michigan and Minnesota have combined reporting laws but do not allow the sharing of net business loss carryforwards among other companies in the combined group.

Illinois has its own unique regulations relating to the net business loss carryforward statute, including: IL Regs. 100.2310, 100.2330, 100.2340, 100.2350, and 100.5270.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The department has created this proposed rule order to comply with the statutory requirement to administer the changes under 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 to the treatment of pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards under combined reporting. No other data was used in the preparation of this proposed rule order or this analysis.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business

As explained above, this proposed rule is created to administer changes in Wisconsin's income and franchise tax laws. As the rule itself does not impose any significant financial or other compliance burden, the department has determined that it does not have a significant effect on small business.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This proposed rule order does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector

This proposed rule does not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector.

Effect on Small Business

This proposed rule does not have a significant effect on small business.

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. Tax 2.60 (2) (Lm) is created to read:

Tax 2.60 (2) (Lm) “Pre-2009 net business loss carryforward" has the meaning given to "pre-2009 net business loss carry-forward" in s. 71.255 (6) (bm) 1., Stats.

SECTION 2. Tax 2.61 (9) (intro.), (a) (intro.) and 1., and (b) (intro.) are amended to read:

Tax 2.61 (9) (intro.) A combined group member may carry forward its net business loss as provided in ss. 71.26 (4) and 71.45 (4), Stats. A net business loss carryforward is an attribute of the separate corporation rather than of the combined group. However, s. 71.255 (6) (b) and (bm), Stats., provides that a combined group member may share all or a portion of its net business loss carryforward with the other members of its combined group if certain conditions are met. This subsection explains which net business loss carryforwards are sharable, how to compute the sharable amount, and how to apply the shared losses. The following rules apply:

(a) (intro.) A combined group member may share its net business loss carryforward incurred in a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2009 with other combined group members to the extent that all of the following conditions are met:

1. The net business loss originated in a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2009 and is attributable to combined unitary income included in a combined report.

(b) (intro.) A combined group member's net business loss carryforward incurred in a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2009 that cannot be shared with other combined group members includes amounts attributable to the following:

SECTION 3. Tax 2.61 (9) (b) 1. is repealed

SECTION 4. Tax 2.61 (9) (b) 2. and 3. are renumbered 2.61 (9) (b) 1. and 2.

SECTION 5. Tax 2.61 (9) (c) is repealed and recreated to read:

Tax 2.61 (9) (c) Order of carryforwards. A combined group member shall apply net business loss carryforwards in the following order:

1. Net business loss carryforwards incurred by that same member in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2009, in the order that the underlying net business losses were incurred.

2. Sharable and non-sharable net business loss carryforwards under par. (d) incurred in taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, in the order that the underlying net business losses were incurred. If the net business loss carryforward to be used consists of both a sharable amount and a non-sharable amount incurred in the same taxable year, the amount of sharable and non-sharable carryforward used shall be determined on a pro rata basis according to the amount of each type of carryforward available from that year.

3. For loss carryforwards shared in a taxable year that begins after December 31, 2011, pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards under par. (dm).

Example: Combined Group EFG consists of Member E, Member F, and Member G. E has the following loss carryforwards:

Year     Sharable   Non-sharable
Incurred   Carryforward   Carryforward

2008   ——     ($10,000)

2009   ($6,000)   ($2,000)

In 2010, E's share of combined unitary income plus its separate entity items equal $14,000. After using its carryforwards to offset this income, E has $4,000 of remaining net business loss carryforward (= ($10,000) + ($6,000) + ($2,000) + $14,000). Of this amount, a portion is a sharable carryforward that may be applied against F and G's shares of combined unitary income in the manner described in par. (d). Since loss carryforwards are applied in the order incurred, the $10,000 carryforward from 2008 is used in its entirety, and $4,000 of the 2009 carryforward is used. The portion of E's remaining carryforward from 2009 that is sharable is $3,000 (= $4,000 x [$6,000 / $8,000]) and the portion that is non-sharable is $1,000 (= $4,000 x [$2,000 / $8,000]).

In 2012, E has the following loss carryforwards:

Year     Sharable   Non-sharable
Incurred   Carryforward   Carryforward

2009   ($3,000)   ($1,000)

2010   ——   ——

2011   ($4,000)   ($6,000)

In addition, E has a pre-2009 net business loss carryforward of $3,000. E's share of combined unitary income plus its separate entity items for 2012 equal $16,000. After using its carryforwards to offset this income, E has $1,000 of remaining net business loss carryforward (= ($3,000) + ($3,000) + ($1,000) + ($4,000) + ($6,000) + $16,000). Since the loss carryforwards are first applied to the net business loss carryforwards incurred in 2009 and after, the $4,000 carryforward from 2009 and the $10,000 carryforward from 2011 are used in their entirety. The remaining $2,000 of loss carryforwards are applied to the pre-2009 net business loss carryforward. The remaining pre-2009 net business loss carryforward is $1,000.

SECTION 6. Tax 2.61 (9) (d) (intro.) is amended to read:

Tax 2.61 (9) (d) (intro.) Method of sharing. The amount of net business loss carryforward under par. (c) 2. eligible for sharing shall be computed and assigned as follows:

SECTION 7. Tax 2.61 (9) (dm) is created to read:

Tax 2.61 (9) (dm) Pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards. 1. For a combined group member's first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2011, the member may, after using the pre-2009 net business loss carryforward to offset its own income for the taxable year, and after using sharable losses to offset its own income for the taxable year, use 5% of the pre-2009 net business loss carryforward to offset the income of all other members of the combined group for the taxable year and for each of the 19 subsequent taxable years.

Example: Member A of Wisconsin Combined Group ABC has pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards of $100 million as of December 31, 2008. A's share of the combined group's income is $2 million in 2009, $3 million in 2010, and $5 million in 2011. A's one-time calculation of the annual 5% sharable amount is $4.5 million, computed as follows: [$100 million pre-2009 net business loss carryforward less the taxable income offset by the net business loss carryforward ($2 million in 2009, $3 million in 2010, and $5 million in 2011) multiplied by 5 percent].

In 2012 Member A's share of the combined group's Wisconsin income is $1 million. Member A first applies its pre-2009 net business loss carry-forward against its $1 million share of the combined group's Wisconsin income. The remaining members of the group may use the $4.5 million sharable loss to offset the remaining group income on a proportionate basis. Assuming the combined group has enough income in 2012 to fully use the entire $4.5 million in pre-2009 net business loss carryforward, the pre-2009 net business loss carryforward available in 2013 is $84.5 million ($90 million total sharable loss less $1 million of Member A's income offset by the net business loss carry-forward, less $4.5 million sharable loss utilized by the corporation in 2012). If Member A's share of the combined group's income is $0 for all the remaining years of the pre-2009 carry-forward, and the remaining members of the combined group were eligible to share the full $4.5 million net business loss carry-forward each year, the sharable pre-2009 net business loss available in 2031 will be $3.5 million ($4.5 million annual sharable loss computed in 2012 less $1 million loss used by Member A in 2012).

2. Except as provided in par. (g), relating to insurance companies, the sharable pre-2009 net business loss carryforward under subd. 1. shall be assigned to each combined group member in proportion to its share of combined unitary income as computed in subs. (6) to (8), net of any losses from separate entity items or loss carryforwards already applied. An amount may not be assigned to a combined group member whose share of combined unitary income is zero or less. Any remaining sharable amount becomes part of the combined group's pre-2009 net business loss carryforward that may be shared by all combined group members in subsequent years.

Example: Member D of Combined Group DEF has a pre-2009 net business loss carry-forward of $2 million as of January 1, 2012. The 5% sharable amount allowed to members E and F in each year for taxable years 2012 through 2031 is $100,000 ($2 million net business loss carryforward multiplied by 5%). Member E's proportional share of the $100,000 sharable net business loss in 2012 is $30,000. After using all other allowable losses, Member E has $20,000 in income remaining to offset against its share of the pre-2009 net business loss carryforward. The remaining $10,000 net business loss carryforward not used by Member E in 2012 becomes part of the combined group's pre-2009 net business loss carryforward that may be shared by all combined group members in 2013 and is in addition to the 5% net business loss carryforward previously computed. As a result, the net business loss carryforward available in 2013 is $110,000 ($100,000 combined group yearly sharable loss plus Member E's $10,000 proportional share of the $100,000 loss in 2012 that was not fully utilized by Member E in 2012).

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 71.26 (4) (a) and 71.45 (4) (a), Stats., under ss. 71.26 (4) (b) and 71.45 (4) (b), Stats., any unused pre-2009 net business loss carryforward under subd. 1. may be offset against the income of the members of the combined group for the 20 taxable years that begin after December 31, 2011.

Example: As of December 31, 2008, Member G of Combined Group GHI has a loss carryforward of $30,000 that is in the 14th year of the 15 year carryforward period under s. 71.26 (4) (a), Stats. Member G does not have any income to offset the $30,000 loss carryforward in its taxable years beginning in 2009, 2010, or 2011. For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, Member G is allowed to use the $30,000 pre-2009 net business loss carryforward to offset any of its own income first, then offset its proportional share of Combined Group GHI's income, and finally, any remaining loss may be shared proportionately among the other members of Combined Group GHI. Under s. 71.26 (4) (b), Stats., Member G's pre-2009 net business loss carryforward of $30,000 begins a new carryforward period of 20 years from its taxable year beginning in 2012.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Section Tax 2.60 - Definitions relating to combined reporting and Section Tax 2.61 - Combined reporting
Subject
Treatment of pre-2009 net business loss carryforwards under combined reporting
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The rule does not create or revise policy, other than to reflect a statutory change.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
As indicated in the attached fiscal estimate, the fiscal effect of allowing commonly controlled groups to share losses generated before January 1, 2009, was included in the fiscal effect of 2011 Wisconsin Act 32. The rule itself does not create any further economic or fiscal impact or implementation and compliance costs beyond the statutes it interprets, except that, by providing clarifications and examples, may reduce the costs that businesses and individuals would otherwise incur to comply with the statutes. No comments concerning the economic effect of the rule were submitted in response to the department's solicitation.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Clarifications and guidance provided by administrative rules may lower the compliance costs for businesses, local governmental units, and individuals. If the rule is not implemented, Chapter Tax 2 will be incomplete in that it will not reflect current law.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
No long-range implications are anticipated.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois has its own unique provisions concerning the treatment of net business loss carryforwards, which differ from Wisconsin's provisions substantively enough to prohibit consideration of the Illinois approach.

Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate

The proposed rule prescribes the method that members of the same combined group must use to share net business losses with other members of the same commonly controlled group for net business losses incurred prior to January 1, 2009, and not fully used before January 1, 2012. It also provides clarity regarding the 15 year and 20 year net business loss carryforwards for purposes of ss. 71.26 (4) (a) and (b) and 71.45 (4) (a) and (b), Stats.

The fiscal effect of allowing commonly controlled groups to share losses generated before January 1, 2009 was included in the fiscal effect of 2011 Act 32. The rule only implements the provisions of Act 32 as it relates to the sharing of losses, it does not modify them. Therefore, the rule has no fiscal effect.

Agency Contact Person

Please contact Dale Kleven at [phone] or [e-mail], if you have any questions regarding this proposed rule.

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services

Safety, Buildings, and Environment,
General Part I Chs. SPS 301-319

CR 12-007

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections 101.02 (1) and 227.10 (1), Stats., the Department of Safety and Professional Services will hold a public hearing on proposed rules under Chapter SPS 305, relating to thermal insulator credentials.

Hearing Information

The public hearing will be held as follows:

Date:   Monday, February 13, 2012

Time:   10:00 A.M.

Location:   Conference Room 121A
  125 South Webster St.
  Madison, WI 53703

This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call [phone] or [phone] (TTY) at least 10 days before the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.

Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until Monday, February 20, 2012, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. Written comments should be submitted to James Quast, at the Department of Safety and Professional Services, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at [e-mail].

The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Safety and Professional Services is Bill Wendle, who may be contacted at telephone [phone], or Email at [e-mail].

Copies of Proposed Rules

The proposed rules and an analysis of the proposed rules are available on the Internet at the Safety and Buildings Division Web site at http://dsps.wi.gov/sb/SB-HomePage.html. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Norma McReynolds, at the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Board Services Division, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email [e-mail], or at telephone [phone] or TDD Relay dial 711 in Wisconsin or [phone]. Copies will also be available at the public hearing.

Statutes interpreted

Sections 101.02 (1) and 227.10 (1), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 101.02 (1) and 227.10 (1), Stats.

Related statute or rule

None.

Explanation of agency authority

Under 2009 Wisconsin Act 16, s. 101.136, Stats., on and after July 1, 2011, only individuals licensed as insulation mechanics or working under the supervision of licensed insulation mechanics may install or maintain thermal system insulation. Thermal insulation was statutorily defined as a product that is used in a heating, ventilating, cooling, plumbing or refrigeration system to insulate any hot or cold surface, including a pipe, duct, valve, boiler, flue, or tank, or equipment on or in a building. 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 repealed s. 101.136, Stats.

Summary of proposed rules

The proposed rules repeal the credentialing procedures established for thermal system insulators under s. 101.136, Stats., as mandated under 2009 Wisconsin Act 16.

Summary of and preliminary comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations

An internet search on U.S. federal regulations and U.S. federal register yielded no results regarding the licensing of thermal insulators.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

An Internet-based search of thermal insulation mechanic licenses in the states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota found that none of the states have specific rules or programs regarding these types of licenses.

Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies

The proposed rules were developed because of 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 which repealed s. 101.136, Stats.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses or in preparation of economic impact report

The proposed rule action follows the direction provided by 2011 Wisconsin Act 32.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.   Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.

  2011 Wisconsin Act 32 repealed the statutory mandate for thermal insulators previously enacted by 2009 Wisconsin Act 16, s. 101.136, Stats. Thermal insulation was statutorily defined as a product that is used in a heating, ventilating, cooling, plumbing or refrigeration system to insulate any hot or cold surface, including a pipe, duct valve, boiler flue, or tank or equipment on or in a building. The repeal of the credential rules will most likely affect HVAC contractors, plumbing contractors, and mechanical refrigeration contractors.

2.   Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.

  No new or additional reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures are required for compliance with the rules.

3.   Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

  No new or additional types of professional skills are necessary for compliance with the rules.

The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Safety and Professional Services is Bill Wendle, who may be contacted at telephone [phone], or Email at [e-mail].

Environmental Analysis

Notice is hereby given that the department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with Chapter SPS 301, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. SPS 305.02 Table 305.02 lines 50r. to 50t. are repealed.

SECTION 2. SPS 305.06 Table 305.06 lines 45r. to 45t. are repealed.

SECTION 3. SPS 305.74 and 305.741 to 305.743 are repealed.

Agency Contact

James Quast, Program Manager, [e-mail], [phone]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter SPS 305, Licenses, Certifications and Registrations
Subject
Thermal System Insulators
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED X PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Section 101.136, Stats., as created by 2009 Wisconsin Act 16, mandates as of July 1, 2011 only individuals licensed as insulation mechanics or working under the direct supervision of licensed insulation mechanics may install or maintain thermal system insulation. The department promulgated rules under Chapter SPS 305 effective February 1, 2011 that implemented the licensing mandates of 2009 Wisconsin Act 16. Subsequently, 2011 Wisconsin Act 32, has repealed s. 101.136, Stats., and therein eliminated the licensing mandates for thermal system insulators.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
It was estimated that the credential rules implemented pursuant to 2009 Wisconsin Act 16 regarding thermal insulators would most likely affect HVAC contractors, plumbing contractors, and mechanical refrigeration contractors. Fees for the various credentials ranged from $15 for apprentices and helpers to $250 for mechanics. In light of the Act 32, the thermal insulator credentials were not implemented and the associated fees not collected.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The proposed repeal of the credential rules for thermal insulators will clarify and allow individuals to continue to install and maintain thermal system insulation without the necessity of acquiring a specific credential. An alternative of leaving the rules in place and requiring the credentials under the broad authority of Chapter 101, Stats., would not reflect the latest direction provided by 2011 Wisconsin Act 32.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
No long range implications are anticipated.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
An internet search on U.S. federal regulations and U.S. federal register yielded no results regarding the licensing of thermal insulators.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
An Internet-based search of thermal insulation mechanic licenses in the states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota found that none of the states have specific rules or programs regarding these types of licenses.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
James Quast, program manager, [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services
Medical Examining Board

CR 12-005

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2), 448.05 (5), 448.20 (3) (a), 448.40 (2) (f), Stats., and interpreting sections 448.21 (2) and (3), Stats., the Medical Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section Med 8.10 (2); to renumber section Med 8.02 (1); to renumber and amend sections Med 8.01 and Med 8.10 (3) and (4); to amend sections Med 8.05 (2) (title), Med 8.05 (2) (b), Med 8.05 (2) (b) (7), Med 8.05 (2) (c), Med 8.07 (1), Med 8.07 (2) (a) and (e), Med 8.08 (title), Med 8.08 (1), Med 8.08 (3) (b), Med 8.10 (title), Med 8.10 (1); to repeal and recreate sections Med 8.08 (2) and Med 8.08 (3) (a) and to create sections Med 8.01 (2), Med 8.02 (1), Med 8.02 (4m), Med 8.02 (7), Med 8.05(2) (e), Med 8.07 (1) (a) and (b), and Med 8.08 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d), and Med 8.08 (3) (c) and (d), relating to definitions, practice prescribing limitations, employment requirements and supervising physician responsibilities.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Time:   9:00 A.M.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue (enter at 55       North Dickinson Street)
  Room 121
  Madison, WI 53703

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. You may make a presentation in person or submit a brief statement regarding facts, opinions and arguments, or both. You may also submit a brief statement of facts, opinions and arguments in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to Shawn Leatherwood, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708. Written comments will be accepted until February 15, 2012.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail]. Comments must be received on or before February 15, 2012, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule, Fiscal Estimate, and Economic Impact Analysis

Copies of the proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 or by email at
[e-mail].

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Sections 448.21 (2) and (3), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) (a), 448.05 (5), 448.20 (3) (a), 448.40 (2) (f), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

The legislature, via Wis. Stats. ss. 15.08 (5) (b), and 227.11 (2) (a), conferred upon the Medical Examining Board general powers to promulgate rules for the guidance of the profession and to interpret the provisions of statutes it enforces. Section 448.05 (5) authorizes the Board to promulgate rules that establish licensing and practice standards for physician assistants. Section 448.40 (2) (f), Stats., directs the board to promulgate rules regarding the prescriptive practice of physician assistants. Therefore, the Medical Examining Board is both generally and specifically authorized to promulgate these proposed rules.

Section 448.20 (3) (a) confers upon the Council on Physician Assistants the authority to advise the Medical Examining Board on revisions of standards in licensing, practice, education and training of physician assistants.

Related statute or rule

Sections 448.01 (6), 448.20 (3), Stats., Wis. Admin. Code section Med 10.02 (2) (t).

Plain language analysis

Physician assistants practice as part of a physician-led team with physicians supervising the health care services they provide. Currently, one physician may supervise no more than two physician assistants at one time without permission from the Medical Examining Board (Board). The proposed rule increases the maximum number of physician assistants a physician may concurrently supervise from 2 to 4.

Under current law the Board may, in an exercise of discretion, authorize a physician to supervise more than two physician assistants concurrently. A physician requesting an increase in the numbers of physician assistants to be supervised must submit a written plan for the Board's review. The Board may grant the request if the Board is satisfied that the increased number of physician assistants will not compromise patient safety. The proposed rules retain the Board's authority to increase the number of physician assistants a physician may concurrently supervise on a case-by-cases basis.

The proposed rule defines terms necessary to clarify responsibilities in the physician-led teams in which physician assistants work. It further eliminates any reference to the outdated term, “substitute supervising physician."

Current law provides that applicants for licensure as physician assistants may be required to submit to an oral examination. The existing term is outdated and does not reflect that during a personal appearance the Board may also require an applicant to submit to an interview, or a review of credentials, or both. The proposed rule clarifies that the Board may require, as a prerequisite to licensure, successful completion of an oral examination or a personal appearance or both.

Finally, the proposed rule explains that the periodic review of physician assistant prescribing practices must occur at least annually, with more frequent review optional, depending upon applicable standards of care and other factors.

SECTION 1. Renumbers and amends Med 8.01

SECTION 2. creates a statement of intent and add it to the authority and purpose provision.

SECTION 3. Renumbers Med 8.02 (1) to 8.02 (1m).

SECTION 4. Defines the terms “adequate supervision", “general supervision" and “supervising physician".

SECTION 5. Clarifies that in addition to written and oral examinations, the Board may require satisfactory performance of a personal appearance for the purpose of an interview, a review of credential, or both.

SECTION 6. Amends Med 8.05(2) (b) (7) to remove outdated references to particular mental health disorders.

SECTION 7. Amends Med 8.05 (2) (c) to allow a personal appearance as well as an oral examination if required by the application review panel.

SECTION 8. Creates Med 8.05 (2) (e) a provision regarding the components of a satisfactory personal appearance.

SECTION 9. Amends Med 8.07(1) by clarifying that a physician assistant's practice may be supervised by one or more supervising physicians.

SECTION 10. Creates Med 8.07 (1) (a) and (b) regarding physician assistant's scope of practice.

SECTION 11. Amends Med 8.07 (2) (a) and (e) by striking repetitive and ambiguous language.

SECTION 12. Amends Med 8.08 (title) and Med 8.08 (1) to specify that the supervising physician and the physician assistant shall review guidelines for supervised prescriptive practice at least annually and clarifies the requirement that the guidelines for supervised prescriptive practice shall include the process and schedule for the supervising physician's review.

SECTION 13. Creates Med 8.08 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) specifying the contents of the written guidelines for the required supervised prescriptive practice.

SECTION 14. Repeals and recreates Med 8.08 (2) to simplify when physician assistants are authorized to prescribe.

SECTION 15. Repeals and recreates Med 8.08 (3) (a).

SECTION 16. Amends Med 8.08 (3)(b) to require supervising physicians to document review of the physician assistant's prescriptive practice in the patient records.

SECTION 17. Creates Med 8.08 (3) (c) and (d) regarding documenting the periodic review.

SECTION 18. Amends Med 8.10 (1) by increasing the number of physician assistants a physician may supervise from 2 to 4, and clarifying the nature of supervision.

SECTION 19. Repeals Med 8.10 (2) eliminating the provision regarding substitute supervising physicians.

SECTION 20. Amends Med 8.10 (3) and (4) striking repetitive language regarding supervising physicians.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal legislation

There is no comparative existing or proposed federal rule.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: The state of Illinois limits the physician assistant to physician ratio to 2:1; unless the supervising physician designates an alternate supervising physician. An alternate supervising physician may supervise more than two physician assistants at the same time when the supervising physician is unable to fulfill the duties. 225 Ill. Comp. Stat. 95/7

Iowa: The state of Iowa limits the physician assistant to physician ratio to 2:1. 645 IAC 326.8 (3) (148 C)

Michigan: The state of Michigan allows a physician assistant to physician ratio of 4:1 when the supervising physician is a solo practitioner who practices in a group of physicians and treats patients on an outpatient basis. Physicians who have privileges at a health facility or agency or a state correctional facility may supervise more than four physician assistants; but the physician assistant to physician ratio is 2:1 if the physician supervises a physician assistant at more than one location. MCLS s. 333.17048

Minnesota: The state of Minnesota allows a physician to supervise five physician assistants simultaneously. In the case of an emergency a physician may supervise more than five physician assistants at any given time. Minn. Stat. s. 147A.01

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

In recognition of physician work-force shortages and at the request of the Council on Physician Assistants, the Medical Examining Board created a work group to research and advise the board on whether or not to increase the supervision ratio of physician assistants to physicians, and if so under what circumstances. The work group consisted of members of the Medical Examining Board, who are licensed physicians, the chairperson of the Council on Physician Assistants and consultation from the State Medical Society, the Wisconsin Council of Physician Assistants and the Wisconsin Hospital Association. Members of the work group examined the statutes and regulations of other states as well as recommendations of the Federation of State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Family Practitioners and the American Academy of Physician Assistants.

The national trend, as recognized by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Academy of Physician Assistants, is to increase the number of physician assistants a physician may supervise. Both organizations have, as a national model, recommended that regulatory bodies refrain from specifying a particular number of physician assistants a physician may concurrently supervise. Rather, the recommendation is that supervising physicians make the determination based on prevailing standards for competent medical practice, day-to-day realities, and the nature of the physician's actual practice.

The work group presented its findings to the Medical Examining Board with a recommendation that the board increase the ratio from 1:5. The board considered several factors including practice setting in which physician and physician assistants carry out their duties and patient care issues such as a growing shortage of health care practitioners in underserved communities. The board emphasized the need for adequate physician supervision of physician assistant's practice and adopted the work group's recommendation to increase the ratio of physician assistants a physician may supervise. However, after extensive discussion, the board decided to authorize a physician to physician assistant supervision ratio of 1:4. The proposed rule would continue to allow the board, in its discretion, to increase the ratio in individual circumstances.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic report

The department finds that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in 227.114 (1), Stats.

Anticipated Costs Incurred by the Private Sector

The department finds that this rule will incur no additional costs to the private sector.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The proposed rule is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on businesses, public utility rate payers, local government units or the state's economy as a whole. The proposed rule was posted on the department's website for 14 days. Comments were solicited. The department did not receive any comments regarding an economic impact from local government units, specific business sectors or public utility rate payers. Therefore, the department finds the proposed rule will have no economic impact.

Effect on Small Business

The department finds that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

It is anticipated that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in 227.114 (1), Stats.

Agency Contact Person

Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Wis. Admin Code Med 8
Subject
Increasing the number of physician assistants a physician may supervise
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule addresses the issue of whether to increase the number of physician assistants a physician may concurrently supervise. Currently, a physician may simultaneously supervise two physician assistants at one time. If a physician wishes to supervise more than two physician assistants he or she must submit a written plan to the Medical Examining Board for review and approval. The proposed rule will increase the number of physician assistants a physician may simultaneously supervise from 2 to 4.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
The proposed rule is not anticipated to have any fiscal impact on businesses, public utility rate payers, local government units or the state's economy as a whole. The proposed rule was posted on the department's website for 14 days. Comments were solicited. The department did not receive any comments regarding an economic impact from local government units, specific business sectors or public utility rate payers. Therefore, the department finds the proposed rule will have no economic impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The national trend, as recognized by the Federation of State Medical Boards, is to increase the number of physician assistants a physician may supervise as one of the means to address the problem of physician workforce shortages. Implementing this proposed rule will bring Wisconsin in line with the national trend and allow greater flexibility for physicians and physician assistants in providing health care. The alternative to implementing the rule is to allow the current physician to physician assistant ratio to remain the same.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The primary long term effect of implementing this rule will be building physician and physician assistant health care teams that are equipped to meet the demands of providing adequate health care in spite of growing physician workforce shortages.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There are no comparative federal rules.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Similar to the current rule, Illinois and Iowa limit the ration of physician assistants a physician may supervise to 2:1. Illinois allows “alternate supervising physicians" to supervise more than two physician assistants when the supervising physician is unable to perform supervisory duties. Michigan allows a physician assistant to physician ratio of 4:1 when the supervising physician practices within a group of physicians. If the supervising physician has privileges at a health facility, agency or state correctional facility he or she may supervise more than 4. However, if the physician assistant and physician are not in the same location the ratio is limited to 2:1. The proposed rule is most similar to Minnesota which allows a physician to simultaneously supervise five physician assistants at once. In an emergency, a Minnesota physician may supervise more than five physician assistants.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood 608-261-4438

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services
Board of Nursing

CR 12-004

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Board of Nursing in sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) and 441.01, Wis. Stats., and interpreting sections 441.06 (1) and 441.10 (3) (d), Wis. Stats., the Board of Nursing will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend sections N 3.03 (1) (a) 3., N 3.03 (1) (b) 6., N 3.03 (2) (a) 3., and N 3.03 (2) (b) 6., relating to endorsement licensure.

Hearing Information

Date:   Thursday, February 23, 2012

Time:   8:00 A.M.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room ABC
  3365 W. Brewster St.
  Appleton, WI 54914

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 Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

Comments may be submitted to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708, or by email to [e-mail]. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held at 8:00 a.m. on February 23, 2012 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at [e-mail].

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Sections 441.06 (1) and 441.10 (3) (d), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2); 441.01, Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

An examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the profession to which it pertains. The Board may establish rules to prevent unauthorized persons from practicing professional nursing.

Related statute or rule

Sections 441.06 (1) and 441.10 (3) (d), Stats. and N 3.03, Wis. Admin. Code.

Plain language analysis

Currently, a person licensed as a nurse in another state, territory, province or other jurisdiction is prohibited from obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse through the endorsement process if there has ever been disciplinary action against their nurse license in any state, territory, province or other jurisdiction.

Section 1-4 are amended to allow the Board to license by endorsement those who have had disciplinary action except in the circumstances that within the Board's discretion the discipline does not warrant licensure in order to protect the public.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: The Illinois Board of Nursing permits licensing by endorsement for professional and practical nurses, provided the other state's licensing requirements are similar to Illinois. The Illinois Board of Nursing looks at the disciplinary history from the last five years in making a decision to license by endorsement. While a decision is pending on licensure a temporary endorsement license is issued if the person holds an unencumbered license from another state and will be terminated if it is discovered that within the last five years, the applicant has had a license or permit related to the practice of nursing revoked, suspended or placed on probation by another jurisdiction, if at least one of the grounds is substantially equivalent to grounds in Illinois.

Iowa: The Iowa Board of Nursing permits licensing by endorsement and may consider in the application process a record of prior disciplinary action regardless of jurisdiction.

Michigan: The Michigan Board of Nursing permits licensing by endorsement provided the other state's licensing requirements are substantially the same as Michigan's requirements. The Board's rules do not address the issue of discipline in another state.

Minnesota: The Minnesota Board of Nursing permits licensing by endorsement provided the applicant has the qualifications equivalent to Minnesota's requirements. The rules do not preclude an applicant from licensure solely on the basis of prior discipline and allows for Board discretion.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The proposed change would facilitate the ability of nurses to obtain licensure to work in our state and increase the available workforce, as well as promote efficiency and fairness. The Wisconsin rule is inconsistent with the rules in the (4) four border states which allow the exercise of discretion when applying for licensure through endorsement. The proposed rule change fosters continued mobility of the nurse workforce and benefits employers by increasing access to qualified nurses.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report

This rule creates a change in how licensure decisions are made which does not impact small businesses. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

There is no effect on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. N 3.03 (1) (a) 3. is amended to read:

N 3.03(1)(a)3. Has a license against which no disciplinary action, which the Board deems to warrant a denial, has been taken in any of the states, territories or provinces in which the applicant has held a license.

SECTION 2. N 3.03 (1) (b) 3. is amended to read:

N 3.03(1)(b)3. Has a license against which no disciplinary action, which the Board deems to warrant a denial, has been taken in any of the states, territories or provinces in which the applicant has held a license.

SECTION 3. N 3.03 (2) (a) 3. is amended to read:

N 3.03(2)(a)3. Has a license against which no disciplinary action, which the Board deems to warrant a denial, has been taken in any of the states, territories or provinces in which the applicant has held a license.

SECTION 4. N 3.03 (2) (b) 6. is amended to read:

N 3.03(2)(b)6. Has a license against which no disciplinary action, which the Board deems to warrant a denial, has been taken in any of the states, territories, provinces or countries in which the applicant has held a license.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
N 3.03
Subject
Relating to endorsement licensure
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S			None
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Currently, a person licensed as a nurse in another state is prohibited from obtaining licensure as a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse through the endorsement process if there has ever been disciplinary action against their nurse license in any state. This rule will allow the Board of Nursing to evaluate the circumstances of the discipline and determine whether to license the individual.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There is no economic and fiscal impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
This rule allows the Board of Nursing to evaluate the circumstances of the discipline, including but not limited to, the nature of the conduct, length of time since the conduct occurred, the discipline imposed, and whether the disciplinary requirements have already been fulfilled. Implementing this rule would benefit the ability to facilitate qualified nurses to obtain licensure to work in our state. In addition, it promotes efficiency and fairness.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication of implementing the rule would be an increase in the available workforce of qualified and competent nurses.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The rule would make Wisconsin's endorsement process consistent with our four neighboring states. All four neighboring states do not preclude an applicant with a disciplinary background from being licensed through endorsement. Each of the neighboring Boards of Nursing evaluate the circumstances surrounding the discipline and use their discretion in licensing decisions.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes, Paralegal [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services
Physical Therapy Examining Board

CR 12-002

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) 448.53 (2), 448.55 (3) and 448.56 (6) Stats., and interpreting sections 448.53, 448.535, 448.54, 448.55 (3), 448.56, Stats., and 2009 Wisconsin Act 149, the Physical Therapy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section PT 3.01 (7); to renumber and amend sections PT1.02 (1) to (6); to amend sections PT 1.03 (1) (c), PT 3.01 (title), PT 3.01 (4), PT 4.01 (4), PT 8.05 (intro), and PT 9.01; to repeal and recreate section PT 1.01; and to create sections PT 2.001, PT2.01 (1) (j), PT 3.001, PT 3.002, PT 3.02, PT 4.001, PT 5.001, Pt 6.001, and PT 9.02 (5), relating to licensure, examinations, temporary licenses, locum tenens license, referrals, and continuing education.

Hearing Information

Date:   Thursday, February 16, 2012

Time:   9:00 A.M.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue (enter at 55       North Dickinson Street)
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI 53703

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. You may make a presentation in person, submit a brief statement regarding facts, opinions or arguments, or both. You may also submit a brief statement of facts, opinions and arguments in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to Shawn Leatherwood, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708. Written comments will be accepted up until February 16, 2012.

Copies of Proposed Rule, Fiscal Estimate, and Economic Impact Analysis

Copies of the proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 or by email at
[e-mail].

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail]. Comments must be received on or before February 16, 2012 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Sections 448.53, 448.535, 448.54, 448.55 (3), 448.56, and 2009 Wisconsin Act 149.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) (a), 448.53 (2), 448.55 (3), and 448.56 (6), Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

The legislature via ss. 15.08 (5) (b), and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., confers upon the Physical Therapy Examining Board general powers to promulgate rules for the guidance of the profession and to interpret the provisions of statutes it enforces. Sections 448.53 (2) and 448.55 (3), Stats., especially concerned with regulating health professions, authorizes the Physical Therapy Examining Board to promulgate rules regarding licensure and maintaining competence to practice in the profession. Section 448.56 (6) provides the Physical Therapy Examining Board may promulgate rules defining direct or general supervision of physical therapist assistants. Therefore, the Physical Therapy Examining Board is authorized both generally and specifically to promulgate these proposed rules.

Related statute or rule

Wis. Admin. Code Chapters PT 1 to PT 9.

Plain language analysis

Due to the passage of 2009 Wisconsin Act 149, the administrative rules governing physical therapy professionals required updating. The legislation transformed the Physical Therapists Affiliated Credentialing Board into the Physical Therapy Examining Board. The newly formed board now functions independently without oversight by the Medical Examining Board. These proposed rules effectuate the changes mandated by the legislation by modernizing existing provisions, upgrading the authority sections in Chapters PT 1- 9, adding clarifying terms and revising the classes of temporary licensure.

With these proposed rules, the Physical Therapy Examining Board, pursuant to s. 448.53 (2), Stats., has formed two distinct classes of temporary licensure: the temporary license to practice under supervision, initial licensure and the temporary reentry license. The temporary license to practice under supervision, initial is distinguished from the temporary reentry license in that it is available only to those applicants who have not previously been licensed in Wisconsin. The temporary reentry license is targeted towards returning professional that have not engaged in clinical practice for three years prior to their application. Both classes of temporary licenses are designed to allow entry level professionals and returning professional gain employment opportunities while acquiring clinical experience. Along with revising the classes of temporary licensure, the board further defined the levels of supervision between licensed physical therapist.

SECTION 1 repeals the former authority section and recreates PT 1.01 a new statement of authority.

SECTION 2 renumbers and amends PT 1.02 by adding terms such as, “candidate for reentry", “client", “direct, immediate, on premises supervision", “direct, immediate, one-to-one supervision", “general supervision", “informed consent" and “intimate parts". The terms will aid in clarifying the level of supervision for temporary licensees.

SECTION 3 amends PT 1.03 (1) (c) to distinguish between the documentary evidence required for physical therapist and physical therapist assistants.

SECTION 4 creates PT 2.001 as statement of authority to chapter PT 2.

SECTION 5 creates PT 2.015 (1) (j) by adding a new category for applicants required to complete an oral examination to persons who have voluntarily limited the scope of their practice as a result of being investigated by a credentialing authority.

SECTION 6 creates an authority and definitions sections in chapter PT 3.

SECTION 7 amends PT 3.01 (title) by refining the definition of the temporary license to practice under supervision, initial licensure. This provision extends the class of temporary license holders under supervision to persons who have not previously been licensed in Wisconsin.

SECTION 8 amends PT 3.02 (4) by deleting duplicative language regarding the supervision of physical therapist assistants.

SECTION 9 repeals the renewal provision in PT 3.01 (7) for physical therapist and physical therapist assistants under supervision.

SECTION 10 creates PT 3.02 regarding the temporary reentry license. Physical therapist and physical therapist assistants who have not engaged in the clinical practice of physical therapy for three years are eligible for the temporary reentry license. The temporary reentry license is valid for one year and is nonrenewable.

SECTION 11 creates authority provisions for Chapters PT 4 to PT 6.

SECTION 12 amends PT 4.01 (4) by adding language that allows the Physical Therapy Examining Board greater discretion in extending the expiration date of a locum tenens license. Currently, a locum tenens license expires within 90 days of being issued.

SECTION 13 amends PT 8.05 (intro) by adding a renewal exception for the newly created class of temporary reentry applicants.

SECTION 14 amends the authority and purpose provision in PT 9.01 to reflect the change in status from affiliated credentialing board to examining board.

SECTION 15 creates PT 9.02 (5) adding the term “remedial education". This term applies to continuing education for disciplinary purposes.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

There is no comparative existing or proposed federal rule.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: Illinois does not issue a temporary license, Illinois allows applicants to apply for restoration of licenses that have expired or have been placed on inactive status for a period of 5 to 10 years. Ill. Admin. Code tit.68 §1340.60 (4) (A) Individuals that have allowed their license to lapse must obtain 160 contact hours under the supervision of a licensed physical therapist, or twenty hours of continuing education on the clinical aspects of physical therapy or a combination of both.

Iowa: The state of Iowa does not issue a temporary license. Iowa allows individuals whose license have been inactive for five years or less and those individuals whose license have been inactive for more than five years to apply for reactivation of an inactive license. Iowa Admin. Code r. 645-200.15 (17A, 147, 272C) However, Iowa does have provisions enumerating the supervision requirements for physical therapy assistants. Iowa Admin. Code r. 645-200.6 (272C)

Michigan: Michigan issues a nonrenewable temporary license for physical therapist and physical therapist assistants who are applying for re-licensure and whose license has lapsed less than three years of their expiration date provided they have completed all other requirements other than examination. Mich. Admin. code R 338.7149 Michigan also issues a limited license for physical therapist assistants who graduated from a board approved program but still must complete a physical therapist assistant examination. Mich. Admin. code R 338.7143 Temporary license holders must practice under the supervision of license holders and may not be supervised by limited license holders or temporary license holders. Mich. Comp. Laws §333.16181

Minnesota: By statute, Minnesota issues temporary permits to practice physical therapy. Minn. Stat. §148.71 The permit, once issued, expires 90 days after the next examination for licensure given by the Board. The temporary permit cannot be renewed. Temporary license holders may be supervised by applicants for physical therapist, physical therapist assistants and licensed physical therapist. The level of supervision must be direct immediate and on premises.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Physical Therapy Examining Board conducted an extensive review of its rules along with legal counsel. The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy Model Practice Act was also reviewed. The board and its legal counsel identified key areas that required updating pursuant to the passage of 2009 Wisconsin Act 149.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report

It is anticipated that this rule will have no effect on small business as it is defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.

Anticipated costs incurred by the private sector

The proposed rules will not incur additional costs to the private sector.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

With regard to the fiscal impact there would be additional IT costs of approximately $2130 related to coding in the licensing system and additional costs of approximately $340 for updating forms and the website. These costs would be absorbed within the DSPS budget. With regard to the economic impact, the proposed rule language was made available on the department's website for 14 days. Comments were solicited. The department did not receive any comments regarding an economic impact from local government units, specific business sectors or public utility rate payers. The department finds the proposed rule will have no economic impact.

Effect on Small Business

This rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in 227.114 (1), Stats.

The department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

It is anticipated that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in 227.114 (1), Stats.

Agency Contact Person

Shawn Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email a
[e-mail].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Wis. Admin. Code ss. PT 1- PT 9
Subject
Licensure, applications and credentials, examinations, temporary licenses, locum tenens license and continuing education of physical therapists and physical therapist assistants
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO X PRS SEG SEG-S			20.165 (1) (g)
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule effectuates the recent passage of 2009 Wisconsin Act 149. The act changed the Physical Therapists Affiliated Credentialing Board to the Physical Therapy Examining Board. The board now functions independently without oversight by the Medical Examining Board. In order to implement the legislation, the proposed rule modernizes existing provisions, revises the classes of temporary licensure and further defines the level of supervision within the profession. The proposed rule forms to distinct classes of temporary licensure, the temporary license to practice under supervision, initial licensure and the temporary reentry license. The temporary license to practice under supervision, initial licensure is distinguished from temporary reentry license in that it is available only to those applicants who have not previously been licensed in Wisconsin. The temporary reentry license is targeted towards individuals that are returning to practice after having not engaged in clinical practice for a period of three years prior to applying for licensure. Both classes of temporary licensure are designed to allow entry level professionals and returning professionals gain employment opportunities while acquiring clinical experience.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
With regard to the fiscal impact there would be additional IT costs of approximately $2130 related to coding in the licensing system and additional costs of approximately $340 for updating forms and the website. These costs would be absorbed within the DSPS budget. With regard to the economic impact, the proposed rule language was made available on the department's website for 14 days. Comments were solicited. The department did not receive any comments regarding an economic impact from local government units, specific business sectors or public utility rate payers. The department finds the proposed rule will have no economic impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit of implementing the proposed rule will be creating opportunities for persons seeking to enter the practice of physical therapy valuable clinical experience and bringing the current regulations that govern the practice of physical therapy in conformity with 2009 WI Act 149. By distinguishing the classes of temporary licensure and defining the multiple levels of supervision, the proposed rule will provide greater protection for the public. An alternative to implementing the rule is to allow the current regulations to remain outdated and out of compliance with 2009 WI Act 149.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The anticipated long-term result of the proposed rules will be a more consistent scope of practice for licensed physical therapist and physical therapist assistants, as well as consistency in training for those entering the profession.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There is no comparative existing or proposed federal rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Of the neighboring states only Minnesota and Michigan issue temporary licenses. The Minnesota temporary license cannot be renewed and expires 90 days after the next examination for licensure by the board. Michigan also issues a non-renewable temporary license for applicants waiting for exam results. Illinois and Iowa do not issue temporary licensure.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood [phone]