Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

SECTION 127. PSC 160.18 (10) is repealed and recreated to read:

PSC 160.18 (10) A telecommunications provider's adjustments of local exchange rates or surcharges to correct overcollection or undercollection of amounts charged for the purpose of recovering contributions to the universal service fund shall be limited to adjustments for the prior year or for the period beginning with the effective date of the commission's last assessment determination. A telecommunications provider shall file notice of such an adjustment with the commission, in a format acceptable to the commission, within 180 days after the date on which a new assessment rate amount goes into effect.

SECTION 128. PSC 160.181 is amended to read:

PSC 160.181 Use audit. Recipients of universal service fund monies may be audited by the commission to ensure that the funding was applied for requested and used appropriately.

SECTION 129. PSC 160.19 (1), (2) and (4) (b) are amended to read:

PSC 160.19 Universal service fund council. (1) The commission shall appoint a universal service fund council to advise the commission concerning the administration of s. 196.218, Stats., the content of administrative rules adopted pursuant to under s. 196.218, Stats., and any other matters assigned to the universal service fund council by the commission.

(2) The universal service fund council shall consist of telecommunications providers and of consumers of telecommunications services. The commission shall appoint a diverse membership to the universal service council including representatives of the local exchange telecommunications industry; the interexchange telecommunications industry, including facilities-based carriers and resellers; the cable television industry; the wireless industry; other telecommunications providers and consumers of telecommunications services including residential, business, governmental, institutional, and public special interest group users of telecommunications services.

(4) (b) The commission may appoint a replacement member when necessary to serve the remaining term of a member withdrawing from the universal service fund council.

SECTION 130. PSC 161.05 (4) is repealed.

SECTION 131. PSC 171.06 (1) is amended to read:

PSC 171.06(1) All qualified cable television telecommunications service providers shall be subject to the following sections of ch. 196, Stats.: ss.196.02, 196.08, 196.12, 196.203, 196.218, 196.25, 196.39, 196.395, 196.40, 196.41, 196.43, 196.44, 196.65 and 196.66, Stats.

SECTION 132. Effective date. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
PSC 160 Universal Service Support Funding and Programs
3. Subject
Updating the Universal Service Fund rules
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. 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 Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Outdated rules that are no longer in compliance with state and federal law. Elimination of outdated or ineffective provisions. Curtail fraud and abuse potential for federal and state USF programs.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
Wisconsin Federation of Independent Business; League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Wisconsin Towns Association,. Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, Citizens' Utility Board, Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Universal Service Fund Council, and all telecommunications providers.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Wisconsin Towns Association and Wisconsin Alliance of Cities.
12. 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 changes made in this rulemaking have minimal, if any, economic impacts Comments on the economic impact of the rulemaking were more about the substance of the rules. No economic figures were provided. One commenter raised two issues about which the commission has no jurisdiction. Another commenter made a number of comments about te existing rule language rather than changes made as a part of this rulemaking. Some concern was raised about the potential for the size of the fund to increase, but the size of the fund is controlled by the legislature. One economic change was made by deleting a proposed provision about when assessments must be paid.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Updating and revising outdated rules. Added efficiency. The updates will bring these rules into compliance with recent changes to state and federal laws.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Added efficiency and compliance with recent changes to state and federal laws.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The state and federal universal service funds and programs are complementary rather than duplicative. “Eligible Telecommunications Carriers" (ETCs) are designated by the commission and are, thereafter, eligible for funding from the federal USF and for certain funding from the state USF. ETC status was created by the FCC, and codified in 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2). Under FCC rules, state commissions are responsible for designating eligible providers as ETCs.1 Designation as an ETC is required if a provider is to receive federal USF funding. ETC designation is also required to receive funding from some, but not all, state universal service programs. The FCC established a set of minimum criteria that all ETCs must meet. These are codified in the federal rules.2 The 1996 Telecommunications Act states that, “A State may adopt regulations not inconsistent with the Commission's rules to preserve and advance universal service."3 A court upheld the states' right to impose additional conditions on ETCs in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393, 418 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, while states must examine the federal requirements, they are allowed to create additional requirements. Wisconsin has done so. The federal USF provides funding to ETCs that are found to serve high-cost areas. That funding is to be used to help cover the costs of expanding infrastructure into those areas. Doing so should help ensure that rates in those areas stay lower since rates need not provide the funds for that expansion. The Wisconsin USF provides reimbursement to providers that offer credits to customers when rates are higher than as designated in s. PSC 160.09. The federal USF also includes Lifeline and Link-Up programs to assist low-income customers. The Wisconsin Lifeline and Link-Up programs are structured to complement the federal program and to take advantage of the available federal Lifeline and Link-Up funds. The federal USF assessment applies to all carriers, including wireless carriers, and is assessed based on interstate revenues. The state USF assessment applies to all providers, including wireless providers, and is assessed based on intrastate revenues. Wisconsin exempts certain providers from assessment, such as those with under $200,000 in intrastate revenues. There are parts of the federal USF (e.g., the E-Rate program for schools) that do not have a counterpart in the state USF rules. Likewise, some of the state USF rules (e.g., the program to assist persons with disabilities — s. PSC 160.071) address matters not included in the federal USF law or rules. 1 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2), 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(b) 2 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(a), 47 C.F.R. § 54.101(a) 3 47 U.S.C. § 254(f)
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Many state USF programs, both in Wisconsin and in other states, are intertwined with federal universal service programs. As a result, there is a certain amount of similarity among state programs. For example, each of the surrounding states has Lifeline type programs.4 As required under federal law, each has income-based eligibility criteria although the specifics vary somewhat. The level of credits to customers and the resulting reimbursements to providers are similar, due in part to the federal matching dollars attached to credit/reimbursement levels. A difference in Lifeline programs is that the four other states only have a set figure for the Lifeline credit/reimbursement amount (although in Michigan that amount may vary depending on which company is involved). Wisconsin also has a standard Lifeline credit if the base rate5 is $25 or below, although, it has a variable component. If the base rate is $25 or above, the reimbursement/credit is the lesser of: 1.   Whatever is necessary to bring that rate down to $15. 2.   The amount available under the federal USF plus $9.25. In this way, low-income customers in higher cost (generally rural) areas receive a credit sufficient to bring the base rate to a reasonably affordable level and providers are on a fairly “level playing field." The provision in these rules that allows the Lifeline credit to apply to Internet access where a certified disabled customer requires it as a substitute for regular essential telecommunications service is unique within the region.
Wisconsin also has a program (TEPP) that helps provide access to telecommunications service for persons with hearing, speech and/or mobility disabilities. TEPP provides vouchers to help persons with disabilities that impair their ability to use standard telecommunications equipment for accessing telecommunications service to obtain equipment that will assist them in doing so. Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota each have similar programs although the specifics vary. For example, Illinois' program is limited to those with hearing or speech disabilities, and in Minnesota the equipment belongs to the state and must be returned if the customer leaves the state or loses his/her telephone line. Wisconsin also has a program to help lower the monthly cost of telephone service in areas of the state where rates are high. In determining whether assistance under this “high rate assistance" program is required, the program looks both at the rate for basic service and what percentage of a county's median household income that rate entails. Although its commission must vote to activate it, Michigan statutes provide for a similar program that would provide a subsidy to customers of the difference between an affordable rate and the company's forward looking economic cost of providing service (should the latter be higher than the former). Illinois has a high-cost program that provides support to small telecommunications providers if the economic costs of providing certain services exceed the affordable rate set for those services. Surrounding states have taken a variety of approaches to certification and reporting requirements for ETCs including: adoption of formal rules, orders applicable to either new or all ETCs, and case-by-case determinations. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (docket P999/M-05-741) adopted the FCC's exact language for annual certification requirements, with a couple of modifications. The two main modifications are (1) like these proposed rules, filing 2-year service quality improvement plans, and (2) filing information on a service-area basis instead of a wire-center basis. The new requirements are applied to both new and existing ETCs, and to both landline and wireless providers. The Michigan Public Service Commission basically adopted the exact language of the FCC's rules unchanged, including the 5-year quality improvement plans. Michigan has service quality and financial reporting rules for wireline companies that do not apply to wireless ETCs, but all ETCs, both existing and new, are required to meet all of the standards and obligations contained in the FCC's ETC rules, FCC 05-46 and 47 USC 214. The one exception to this is ETCs receiving only low-income support; they have lesser reporting requirements. There are no standards for what types of reporting on quality of service issues meet the adopted FCC requirements. The Illinois Commerce Commission has not officially adopted the FCC rules, but uses them as a base for its ETC decisions, which so far have been on a case-by-case basis. The requirements are not applied to existing ETCs. There have been requests for ETC status where the Illinois Commerce Commission has required wireless ETCs to do more than is spelled out by the FCC, holding that the FCC's requirements are “the minimum requirements." The primary areas where wireless ETCs have been subjected to more scrutiny involve consumer protection, service quality standards, and the public interest analysis. As to telephone directories, wireless providers have been required to provide written disclosure to customers that directories will not be provided and numbers will not be published. The FCC's 5-year plan is retained. The Iowa Utility Board's (IUB) ETC rules incorporate the FCC rules with some modifications. Similar to these proposed rules, IUB requires maps of signal coverage depicting signal strength (although IUB ILECs may refer to maps already on file with the commission.) IUB adopted service quality standards for ETCs although, again like these proposed rules, they differ for landline and wireless. Rolling one year network improvement and maintenance plans are required. The rules are applied to both new and existing ETCs. The Indiana Regulatory Commission (case 41052-ETC-47) adopted the FCC's exact language in a proceeding involving an individual ETC applicant, but made that decision applicable to all ETCs, both landline and wireless. 4 Lifeline helps pay the monthly cost of telephone service 5 The “base rate" is the monthly residential rate including applicable in-state fees, touch-tone service, 911 charges on the telephone bill, the federal subscriber line charge, access recovery charge and 120 local calls.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Lisa Farrell				608-267-9086

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred

Existing USF rules may have an effect on small telecommunications utilities, which are small businesses under s. 196.216, Stats., for the purposes of s. 227.114, Stats. These small telecommunications utilities, like other telecommunications providers (both large and small), may have obligations under the USF, including an obligation for payments to the USF. Other requirements in the rule only apply to CMRS providers who voluntarily choose to become designated as eligible telecommunications carriers. Since the Commission does not regulate CMRS providers, it does not have records indicating how many of them are small businesses. These proposed rules should have no particular impact on small businesses. The Commission already has established, in s. PSC 160.18(1), an exemption from fund assessments to protect entry by and continued operation of small telecommunications providers as directed by statutory objectives. In s. PSC 160.01(2)(b), the existing rules allow the Commission to give individual consideration to unusual situations and to adopt different requirements for particular telecommunications providers. Small businesses can request that the Commission provide an exception to a rule requirement. There are no new reporting or bookkeeping requirements created under these proposed rules. Also, most of the requirements in the proposed rules only apply to providers who voluntarily choose to be designated as “eligible telecommunications carriers." The agency has considered the methods in s. 227.114(2), Stats., for reducing the impact of the rules on small businesses. Accordingly, the agency has included provisions for exemption from assessments for small providers, and allowing requests for consideration of unusual circumstances, as noted above. Further application of these methods is not consistent with statutory objectives.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

Knowledge of the programs, input from industry.

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting X Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements X Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards X Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements ⍽ Other, describe:

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

No requirement to pay assessments if revenues are less than $200,000. Ability to request waiver. Applicability of most requirements is based on a voluntary election.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

, 160.01 (4) Enforcement. The manner of enforcing ch. PSC 160 is prescribed in ss. 196.218, 196.499 (17), and 196.66, Stats., and includes such other means as provided in statutory sections administered by the commission.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services

Professional Services, Chs. SPS 1 — 299

rulemaking_notices CR 13-056 CR 13-056

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Safety and Professional Services in sections15.405 (3) and 480.08 (6), Wis. Stats., and interpreting sections 480.04 (1) and (2), and 480.08 (6), Wis. Stats., the Department will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend section SPS 128.04 (6) (a) and to create section SPS 128.04 (6) (d), relating to course instructors for auctioneers.

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI 53718

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 Policy Development, 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 Shawn Leatherwood, Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to shancethea.leatherwood@ wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on or by October 15, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, by email at [e-mail] or on our website at http://dsps.wi.gov/Default.aspx?Page=44e541e8-abdd-49da-8fde-046713617e9e.

Analysis prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Sections 480.04 (1) and (2) and 480.08 (6), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.405 (3) and 480.08 (6), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Pursuant to s. 15.405 (3), Stats., the Department of Safety and Professional Services has oversight of the Auctioneer Board as an attached board of the Department. In accordance with s. 480.04 (2), Stats., the Auctioneer Board does not have rule-making authority. However, under s. 480.04 (1), Stats., the Auctioneer Board may advise the Department on matters relating to auctioneers. Per s. 480.08 (6), Stats., states that the department may promulgate rules, on behalf of the Auctioneer Board, governing the requirements and procedures for auctioneers obtaining continuing education. The topic of these proposed rules is the requirements concerning instructors administering continuing education courses. Therefore, the Department is authorized both generally and specifically to promulgate these proposed rules.

Related statute or rule

Section SPS 128.04.

Plain language analysis

Currently, per Wis. Admin. Code s. SPS 128.04 (6), course instructors offering continuing education for auctioneers in Wisconsin must be either an auctioneer registered in this state, actively practicing auctioneering for the past five years; or an attorney that practices in the area of auctioneering, or an appraiser approved by the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB). The Auctioneer Board reviewed s. SPS 128.04 (6) and determined that the rule limited the number of eligible course instructors by excluding instructors from other disciplines that may be knowledgeable about auctioneering. By promulgating these proposed rules, the Department and the Auctioneer Board seek to enlarge the pool of eligible instructors to those who are experts in their field, have the required years of experience, and have a course approved by the Department.

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

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: In Illinois auctioneers are regulated by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation. Continuing education courses must be approved by the Division. Illinois further requires that continuing education must be, “developed and presented by persons with education and/or experience in subject matter of the CE course". 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1440.310 (b) (8) (c).

Iowa: Iowa does not regulate continuing education requirements for auctioneers.

Michigan: Michigan does not regulate continuing education requirements for auctioneers.

Minnesota: Minnesota does not regulate the continuing education requirements for auctioneers.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Auctioneer Board reviewed Wis. Admin. Code s. SPS 128.04 and determined a revision to the rule was necessary because the rule limited the type of course instructors that may conduct continuing education in Wisconsin. The pool of eligible instructors is currently restricted to auctioneers registered in Wisconsin, attorneys who are engaged in the field of auctioneering law, and an appraisers approved by the AQB. The Board sought to enlarge the pool of course instructors by drafting this proposed rule. No other factual data or analytical methodologies were used.

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

These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail], or by calling [phone].

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

None.

Environmental Assessment/Statement

None.

Agency Contact Person

Shawn Leatherwood, Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at shancethea.leatherwood@ wisconsin.gov.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
SPS 128.04 (6)
3. Subject
Course Instructors
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule seeks to expand the pool of course instructs eligible to provide continuing education courses to auctioneers in Wisconsin. Enlarging the types of course instructors that can provide continuing education will alleviate the problem of unnecessarily excluding qualified instructors from providing their expertise in various fields to auctioneers in this state.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
This proposed rule will primarily affect auctioneers and various professionals from a variety of disciplines. The rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website for 14 days in order to solicit comments from the public regarding the rule. No comments were received from the public regarding the rule.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
No local governmental units participated in the development of this EIA
12. 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)
This rule will have no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The proposed rule would benefit auctioneers and the public by allowing experts in their respective fields to teach auctioneers about various topics related to auctioneering. By receiving this training, auctioneers will augment their skills and be better prepared to conduct auctions.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Broadening the knowledge base of Wisconsin auctioneers in various fields related to auctioneering.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois: In Illinois auctioneers are regulated by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation. Continuing education courses must be approved by the Division. Illinois further requires that continuing education must be, “developed and presented by persons with education and/or experience in subject matter of the CE course". 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1440.310 (b) (8) (c). Iowa: Iowa does not regulate continuing education requirements for auctioneers. Michigan: Michigan does not regulate continuing education requirements for auctioneers. Minnesota: Minnesota does not regulate the continuing education requirements for auctioneers.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Shawn Leatherwood				608-261-4438

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Dentistry Examining Board

rulemaking_notices CR 13-060 CR 13-060

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Dentistry Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2), and 447.03 (3) (f) 1., Stats., and interpreting section 447.03 (3) (f) 1., Stats., the Dentistry Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order repeal and recreate section DE 9.01; amend section DE 9.02 (intro.), (1), (2), and (4); and create section DE 9.015, relating to lab work authorizations.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Time:   9:30 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue (enter at
  55 North Dickenson Street)
  Room 121A
  Madison, Wisconsin

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 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 Jean MacCubbin, Program Manager, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to Jean.MacCubbin@ wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received before the public hearing to be held on November 6, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Jean MacCubbin, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935, by email at [e-mail] or on our website at http://dsps.wi.gov/ Default.aspx?Page=44e541e8-abdd-49da-8fde-046713617e9e.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 447.03 (3) (f) 1., Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2), and 447.03 (3) (f) 1., Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Section 15.08 (5) (b), Stats., requires that examining boards shall promulgate rules for their own guidance and for the guidance of the professions over which they have jurisdiction, which reads:

Section 227.11 (2), Stats., permits an agency to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, which reads:

Section 447.03 (3) (f) 1., Stats., provides exceptions to licensees regarding practices, such as lab work authorizations, which reads:

“(3) Exceptions. No license or certificate under this chapter is required for any of the following: … (f) A dental laboratory or dental laboratory technician to construct appliances or restorations for dentists if all of the following apply: 1. The appliances or restorations are constructed upon receipt from a dentist of impressions or measurements, directions, and a written work authorization on a form approved by the examining board."

Related statute or rule

There are no other related statutes or rules beyond those indicated above.

Plain language analysis

The objective of the proposed rule is to eliminate the requirement that a written authorization for dental laboratory work shall be on a form approved by the board. The proposed rule will also allow for the continued use of current technologies, such as the request may be made electronically and work orders detailed digitally.

SECTIONS 1. and 2. These sections are proposed to separate the subjects of authority and definitions from the current section, s. DE 9.01 whereby creating two renumbered sections, ss. DE 9.01 and 9.015. The definitions for both dental laboratory and work authorization now clearly remove any reference to a written request or the use of a board-approved form.

SECTION 3. This section deals primarily with the changes to no longer requiring written lab work authorizations, in so far as amending s. DE 9.02 (intro.), (1), (2), and (4) to remove references to out-dated methods of work order requests.

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

No rules or laws were found in an Internet-based search of the U.S. Code or the Code of Federal Register (CFR) for dental lab work authorizations, written or electronic, made by dentists.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

An Internet-based searched resulted in the following findings:

Illinois: The Illinois statutes and codes were researched via the Internet and no specifications were found for dental work authorizations, either written or electronic. [PART 1220 ILLINOIS DENTAL PRACTICE ACT]