Scope Statements
Administration
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 8, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Use of State Buildings and Facilities.
Rule Type
Emergency and Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (for Emergency Rule Only)
The legislature has vested management authority over various state buildings and grounds, including those of the Wisconsin State Capitol, in the Department of Administration since 1979. See
Wis. Stats. s.
16.84 (1). Since 1979, the Department has permitted the use of these buildings and grounds for the free discussion of public questions and other purposes, so long as such uses did not interfere with the prime uses of these facilities, or otherwise infringe on interests of the state.
See
Wis. Stats. s.
16.845; Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.04.
Beginning February 2011, groups of persons began to occupy the Wisconsin State Capitol building without permits. This included appropriating rooms and hallways in the Capitol building for purposes such as camping and storage of bulk supplies. To restore order to the building and to return the building to a point where the work of the Wisconsin State Legislature and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin could perform their constitutionally authorized functions without undue disruption, the Department expended funds in excess of $7,400,000 for law enforcement personnel. The continuous occupation of the State Capitol was formally terminated in March of 2011.
Groups of persons continue to occupy rooms in the Wisconsin State Capitol building without permits, including the Capitol rotunda. These groups constitute an exception to the norm.
The Wisconsin State Capitol Police (WSCP) issue more than 400 permits annually for the use of various state facilities. Permits are issued for a variety of purposes, whether political, non-political, charitable, or commercial. Permits are issued regardless of political party, affiliation, or content.
Occupation of the Capitol rotunda and other areas has caused disruptions to properly permitted events and normal governmental activities, including, but not limited to, a Red Cross blood drive, a high school science exhibit, school group tours, general public tours, and legislative committee meetings and sessions. The State does not refuse permits for the lawful and safe use of State facilities by any group or groups. Neither can the State allow any group to occupy the Capitol in disregard of the rights of permit holders, public employees, or visitors. It is imperative that the Department continue to gain greater compliance from user groups in order to protect public safety and welfare.
Recently, the Department has engaged in mediation discussions with the American Civil Liberties Union as part of an on-going lawsuit related to the rules. Possible resolutions that would not compromise the ability of the Department to protect the core functions of the building have been discussed. This scope statement accounts for possible resolutions discussed with the ACLU, while still preserving the ability of the three Constitutional branches of government to function within the building. To that end, acoustical testing performed in preparation for litigation may provide input for balancing uses of the Capitol with the functioning of our representative democracy; the ACLU was informed of this possibility in the course of mediation.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to obtain greater compliance from user groups regarding facility use. This objective will be achieved by codifying historical Department practices, more clearly detailing certain provisions of the administrative code as informed by judicial interpretations and mediation discussions.
This proposed rule-making may do the following:
A. Codify the WSCP's historical practice of issuing permits to any person requesting such permits, rather than restrict permit requests to only a limited class of governmental officials, non-profit organizations, and the like.
B. Codify limits on the discretion of the WSCP currently found in the Department publication entitled, “Wisconsin State Facilities Access Policy" (WSFAP).
C. Codify historical practices and constitutional protections found in the Department's current facilities use policy manual, including, but not limited to, the appeals procedure.
D.
Adopt the historical interpretation of the WSCP, that persons may be cited for violations of Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.14 (2) for conduct occurring in rooms reserved for use by the Legislature.
E. Define terms such as “event," “exhibit," and “room," or others as deemed appropriate to increase the clarity of the code.
F. Codify alternative avenues for use of state facilities, including the “spontaneous event" exception developed as part of the facilities use manual, and the creation of a lesser category of “notice" use, which, could be superseded by a permitted event or by DOA-led tour groups.
G. Further clarify the distinction between an exhibit and signs and the like which are incidental to events.
H.
Further clarify that a person who creates a hazardous condition and refuses to cease doing so may be cited for such conduct under Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.14 (2) (zd).
I. Further clarify that even common materials can pose a hazard when used or deployed in a hazardous manner.
J. Further clarify that materials deployed in a hazardous manner may be disposed of by WSCP.
K.
Further clarify the appropriate interpretation of Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.14 (2) (v) by sub-dividing the text.
L. Codification of the ability of the Department to set specific decibel limits for events after considering the place where the event is occurring, the time the event is occurring, and the needs of other normal uses of the place; in the alternative, codification of specific decibel limits.
M. Codification of factors to be considered in setting limits on the number of persons who may attend events in or on state buildings or facilities, or in the alternative, codification of specific numerical limits by location, date, time, and other uses affected.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Policies relevant to the rule are existing policies as found in Wis. Stats. ss.
16.84 and
16.845, Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Adm 2, and the historical interpretations of the law as found in WSFAP. Alternatives to codifying historical practice and further clarifying the existing administrative code include: a) terminating the use of the Wisconsin State Capitol as a designated public forum; b) restricting the manners of use of the designated public forum; or c) disposing of the permitting system in favor of a “voluntary permit system."
Terminating the use of the Wisconsin State Capitol building as a designated public forum is an alternative. The United States Capitol building and a substantial number of other state capitol buildings are not public forums. Employing this alternative is not desirable since the vast majority of users have demonstrated that they are capable of holding events or displaying exhibits without undue interference with the functions of the Legislature or the Department. Similarly, restricting the manner of use (e.g., prohibiting rallies and the like) in the Wisconsin State Capitol building is an alternative that is not recommended for the same reasons.
Allowing the free use of the Capitol building without need for a permit is not practicable. There is no known legal or factual precedent for this type of arrangement in any other state capitol buildings. More importantly, the potential for conflict between user groups is too high to make such an approach a realistic or practical alternative, as demonstrated by the issues cited in the finding of emergency.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule, Including the Statutory Citation and Language
The Department is the managing authority of numerous state properties, and is required to, “Have charge of, operate and maintain
… the state capitol building
… and such other state properties as are designated by law." Wis. Stats. s.
16.84 (1). “The department shall promulgate under ch.
227, and shall enforce or have enforced, rules of conduct for property leased or managed by the department." Wis. Stats. s.
16.846 (1). Additionally, “the managing authority of any facility owned by the state
… may permit its use for free discussion of public questions, or for civic, social or recreational activities." Wis. Stats. s.
16.845 (1). Further, “Whoever does or attempts an act for which a permit is required under this section without first obtaining a permit may be fined
… or imprisoned
… or both."
Id.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Excluding time spent reviewing existing rules, historical information, and other sources in the preparation of this scope statement, we estimate that completion of the Final Draft of this emergency rule will require an additional 80 hours of staff time.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This proposed emergency rule will clarify and protect the rights of all of the hundreds of user groups who obtain permits to use State facilities each year, as well as the Legislature, Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office, and the numerous citizens and school groups who visit or work in our State Capitol and other State facilities.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Existing federal regulations allow no permitted activities inside the U.S. Capitol building. Existing federal regulations require permits of activities on the exterior grounds of the U.S. Capitol whenever 20 or more persons are involved. Existing federal regulations concerning other facilities vary widely by the nature and location of the facility.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule. Also, Please Note if the Rule is Likely to have an Economic Impact on Small Businesses
None.
9. Contact Person
Andrew Hitt, Assistant Deputy Secretary
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1741
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Drug residues in animals for human food, and affecting small business.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
The department proposes a rule revision for ch.
ATCP 55, Wis. Adm. Code, specifying corrective actions to be enforced against livestock producers registered under Wisconsin's livestock premises regulations who, on two or more occasions during any calendar year, submit animals, which test positive for any drug residue, to be slaughtered at a state- or federally-inspected meat establishment for human consumption.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.
Meat establishment operators are expected by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators list. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Regulatory action, if it is taken by USDA, is taken against the establishment operator. However, there is no state regulatory corrective action that can be enforced against these repeat offenders. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture is jeopardized by Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residue in livestock and meat products.
Currently ch.
ATCP 55 (Meat and meat food products) addresses the production of meat and meat food products starting with the submission of an animal for slaughter for human consumption and, by reference, adopts United States Department of Agriculture regulations prohibiting the slaughter of “downer" cattle (non-ambulatory) for human food or feed destined for bovine animals. Chapter
ATCP 57 (Inedible animal by-products) deals generally with the slaughter of animals not for human consumption and the collection and processing of inedible byproducts of animal slaughter. Chapter
12 (Animal markets, dealers and truckers) addresses the handling of downer animals and requires that these animals be slaughtered for rendering or euthanized.
The department proposes consulting with industry to determine whether to implement mandatory education-based corrective action, involving the livestock producer and his/her veterinarian, to be enforced the first time a producer is determined to be a repeat residue violator. The department also proposes consideration of more stringent corrective actions, which would be determined after consultation with industry, to be enforced following violations that occur after the initial corrective action is completed.
Policy alternatives
If the department does not alter the current rules, the department will lack a clearly stated rapid enforcement step for tissue drug-residue repeat violations. Federal action against residue repeat violators is generally not taken unless the US Food and Drug Administration investigates, issues a warning letter, and upon further violations, obtains an injunction against the livestock producer. Warning letters and injunctions are seldom issued by the FDA on the basis of tissue drug-residue repeat violations. Instances of tissue drug-residue repeat violation could reduce consumer confidence in the safety of Wisconsin's meat products and place the reputation of Wisconsin's livestock industry in jeopardy.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
93.07 Department duties. It shall be the duty of the department:
(1) Regulations. To make and enforce such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it may deem necessary for the exercise and discharge of all the powers and duties of the department, and to adopt such measures and make such regulations as are necessary and proper for the enforcement by the state of chs.
93 to
100, Stats., which regulations shall have the force of law.
97.09 Rules.
(4) The department may, by rule, establish and enforce standards governing the production, processing, packaging, labeling, transportation, storage, handling, display, sale, including retail sale, and distribution of foods that are needed to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods.
97.42 Compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses.
(4) Rules. The department may issue reasonable rules requiring or prescribing any of the following:
(a) The inspection before and after slaughter of all animals and poultry killed or dressed for human consumption at any establishment.
95.38 Altering records; tampering with ear tags.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to in any manner change any test record, falsely record any test, misrepresent the identification of any animal or any other material fact on any test record, certificate of veterinary inspection, vaccination record, claim for indemnity, or any disease control report or application to the department. It shall be unlawful for any person to induce or to conspire with another, either directly or indirectly, to do any of the said prohibited acts.
(2) No person is permitted to in any way tamper with, insert or remove from the ear of any animal any ear tag or registration mark which is or may be used for identification in disease control work except upon authorization from the department.
(3) The department may adopt rules that are necessary to administer this section.
95.67 Proper use of animal care and disease control products. No person may use chemical, biological or disease control products in the treatment or care of food producing animals without substantially complying with instructions, warnings and directions for use on the product label. No animal or food product including milk of the animal shall be marketed for processing or use as food prior to the time specified on the label of a product used in the treatment or care of the animal. This section applies neither to licensed veterinarians who prescribe or administer drugs in conformity with federal restrictions nor to persons using drugs in a manner prescribed by a licensed veterinarian. This section shall not prevent a farmer from administering animal disease control products to livestock in compliance with instructions on the product label.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.10 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating stakeholder meetings, holding public hearings, and otherwise communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Consumers, meat establishment operators, and livestock producers will all benefit from the department having progressive enforcement capabilities for repeat tissue drug-residue violations.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing food safety risks. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by
9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants.
One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for producers to avoid purchasing animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List before purchasing animals for slaughter. The National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry, and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List.
State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Under this agreement, state meat inspection programs are required to adopt regulations that are “at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. In addition, Wisconsin is one of three states recently accepted into the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program allowing certain selected meat establishments to ship their products in interstate commerce. States in the CIS program must adopt regulations that are the “same as" federal meat inspection regulations.
The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. It will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be implemented well before federal regulatory action is needed.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
This rule change is anticipated to have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on livestock producers who must attend a workshop and improve documentation of animal medications as a result of the proposed rule. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.
8. Contact Person
Steve Ingham, Division of Food Safety Administrator, DATCP
Phone: (608) 224-4701
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Chapter
ATCP 142, Wis. Adm. Code (Existing).
Relating to
The Cranberry Marketing Order.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
This proposed rule would increase the maximum amount the Cranberry Marketing Order Board may assess cranberry growers to enable the Board to more effectively achieve the purposes of ch.
96, Stats., (the Agricultural Marketing Act) and particularly to more effectively maintain and expand the sale of cranberries.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
History and background
The Cranberry Marketing Order that currently exists was adopted in 1983. It provides for a maximum annual assessment for each cranberry producer covered by the order of 10 cents per barrel of cranberries produced. The primary purpose of the marketing order is to maintain and expand the sale of cranberries. To that end, funds collected through assessments may be used by the marketing board for marketing research and development, industrial research and education programs that serve to meet the purpose of the marketing order.
Proposed policies
At the request of the Cranberry Marketing Board, DATCP will explore an increase to the maximum annual assessment sufficient to enable the Cranberry Marketing Board to continue the expansion of the sale of Wisconsin grown cranberries. Any amendment to the marketing order must be approved at a referendum of the growers.
Policy alternatives
Leave the current rule as it is with the same assessment maximum which has not increased since 1983. There has been tremendous growth of Wisconsin cranberry sales and the Board's use of assessment funds has played an important role in that growth. To maintain that success, the Cranberry Board is requesting the increase.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
93.07 Department duties. It shall be the duty of the department:
(1) Regulations. To make and enforce such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it may deem necessary for the exercise and discharge of all the powers and duties of the department, and to adopt such measures and make such regulations as are necessary and proper for the enforcement by the state of chs.
93 to
100, which regulations shall have the force of law.
96.15 Rules. The secretary may, in consultation with the appropriate marketing board or council, issue such rules as necessary to facilitate the administration and enforcement of this chapter.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.20 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating advisory committee meetings, holding public hearings, and communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
This rule would affect cranberry growers. The proposed rule would increase the maximum annual assessment that the Cranberry Board may charge to growers from the current maximum of 10 cents per barrel. Any amendment to the marketing order including a proposal to increase the maximum annual assessment must be approved at referendum by a majority of all Wisconsin cranberry growers.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
There is a federal cranberry marketing order program. The federal cranberry marketing order program serves to promote orderly and efficient marketing of cranberries in the United States. The state and federal programs are complementary and the state program works in close coordination with the federal program. The Department is not aware of any proposals pending to alter the federal cranberry marketing program.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
DATCP expects the proposed rule to have minimal economic impact statewide and locally.
8. Contact Person
Noel Favia, Marketing order Program Coordinator
Phone: (608) 224-5140
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 14, 2013.
Rule No.
Chapter
ATCP 80, Wis. Adm. Code (Existing).
Relating to
Dairy plants, and affecting small business.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
The department proposes a comprehensive review and revision of ch.
ATCP 80, relating to the food safety oversight of dairy plants in Wisconsin. The objective of this proposed rule is to modernize current dairy plant inspection rules in order to ensure compliance with federal Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), accommodate advances in manufacturing dairy products, and continue ensuring the safety and quality of Wisconsin dairy products. The department will also determine whether and the extent to which revisions are needed to harmonize Wisconsin regulations with federal risk-based preventive controls regulations implemented under the Food Safety Modernization Act.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Wisconsin has more than 400 licensed dairy plants. Grade A dairy plants produce pasteurized fluid milk and milk products such as cottage cheese, cream, and yogurt made using Grade A milk from Grade A dairy farms. Grade A milk and milk products must be processed in accordance with standards in the FDA's PMO and are thereby eligible for interstate commerce. The PMO is a guidance document and ch.
ATCP 80 is in substantial compliance with it. Ninety-eight percent of the milk produced in Wisconsin is Grade A. Chapter
ATCP 80 (Dairy Plants) is a comprehensive rule designed to address the specific challenges of manufacturing milk and dairy products and ensuring that these products are high-quality and safe to consume. Chapter
ATCP 80 establishes milk bacteriological and compositional quality standards, sets pasteurization requirements, requires milk testing to measure whether these standards are met, and establishes procedures for testing milk and recording results. Chapter
ATCP 80 also requires dairy plants to keep records of information needed to monitor the safety of their products, and ensure proper financial reporting. The rule also establishes inspection and enforcement requirements, including a requirement that Grade A plants be periodically audited against federal sanitation compliance standards. Finally, ch.
ATCP 80 includes labeling requirements for dairy products not sold for human food or animal feed.
Grade B dairy plants make products not covered under the PMO such as butter, ice cream, and cheese. Grade B products may be made from either Grade A or Grade B milk. Grade B milk comes from farms that have less stringent bacteriological requirements and are inspected less frequently.
FDA revises the PMO every two years. The current ch.
ATCP 80 rules, although largely in compliance with the PMO, must be revised periodically to maintain the needed consistency with the latest version of the PMO and to adapt to new innovations in the dairy industry. For example, the most recently adopted PMO contains new requirements related to aseptic processing and packaging of dairy products which have not been incorporated in ch.
ATCP 80.
The department will consider a variety of potential rule changes which mainly, but not exclusively, involve maintaining consistency with the PMO, and relate to topics such as: the statutory definition of a dairy product; delineation of financial responsibilities for milk contractors and dairy plant operators; equipment and facility standards; evaluation of a plant's water supply; microbiological standards for different products; limits for operating a pasteurizer after a seal has been broken; and variance procedures.
As part of its overall review of ch.
ATCP 80, the department will explore provisions consistent with impending federal regulations (implemented under the Food Safety Modernization Act) that require food processing plants to conduct a hazard analysis and develop a risk-based system of preventive controls. The department may propose rule changes addressing this topic, as needed.
Policy alternatives
FDA revises the PMO every two years and the department must periodically revise ch.
ATCP 80 to ensure substantial compliance with the PMO. If the department does not alter the current rule, the rule may not remain consistent with the PMO which could eventually lead to problems when the FDA audits the Wisconsin dairy inspection program for compliance. A failing regulatory audit score could jeopardize the ability of Wisconsin dairy producers and plants to participate in the Grade “A" program and to maintain Wisconsin's reputation as the Dairy State. Current regulations may not be adequate for addressing emerging food safety issues related to dairy processing.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
93.07 Department duties. It shall be the duty of the department:
(1) Regulations. To make and enforce such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it may deem necessary for the exercise and discharge of all the powers and duties of the department, and to adopt such measures and make such regulations as are necessary and proper for the enforcement by the state of chs.
93 to
100, which regulations shall have the force of law.
97.09 Rules.
(4) The department may, by rule, establish and enforce standards governing the production, processing, packaging, labeling, transportation, storage, handling, display, sale, including retail sale, and distribution of foods that are needed to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods.
97.20 Dairy plants.
(4) Rule making. The department may promulgate rules to establish the fees required under sub. (2) (c) to (2) (w) or to govern the operation of dairy plants. The rules may include standards for the safety, wholesomeness and quality of dairy products; the construction, maintenance and sanitary operation of dairy plants; the design, installation, cleaning and maintenance of equipment and utensils; personnel sanitation; storage and handling of milk and fluid milk products; pasteurization and processing procedures; sampling and testing; and reports and record keeping. The rules may also set forth duties of dairy plants to inspect dairy farms, collect and test producer milk samples and make reports to the department.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.20 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, holding public hearings, and communicating with affected stakeholders. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Dairy plant operators will benefit from increased consistency of Wisconsin regulations with the PMO.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
The proposed rule makes ch.
ATCP 80 more consistent with the PMO. Although compliance with the PMO is technically a voluntary effort by state regulatory agencies, Wisconsin is periodically evaluated by the FDA for compliance with the PMO. Failure to pass the FDA audit would jeopardize the state's interstate and international dairy industry.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
This rule change is anticipated to have no negative impact, but a positive economic impact for Wisconsin's dairy industry. In many respects, it will make Wisconsin's regulations consistent with practices in other states, including those elsewhere in the Upper Midwest which adopt the latest version of the PMO by reference. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.
8. Contact Person
Steve Ingham, Division of Food Safety Administrator, DATCP
Phone: (608) 224-4701
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Chapter
ATCP 60, Wis. Adm. Code (Existing).
Relating to
Dairy farms, and affecting small business.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
The department proposes a comprehensive review and revision of ch.
ATCP 60, relating to the inspection of dairy farms in Wisconsin. The objective of this proposed rule is to modernize current dairy farm inspection rules in order to ensure compliance with the most recent version of the Federal Food and Drug Administration's (“FDA's") Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), accommodate advances in dairying, and continue ensuring the safety and quality of Wisconsin milk. The department will also determine whether, and the extent to which, revisions are needed to improve the efficiency of Grade “A" dairy farm inspections and certain compliance procedures.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Wisconsin ranks second nationally in milk production and operates the nation's largest state dairy inspection program. Wisconsin has by far the largest number of dairy farms operated by licensed dairy producers; the milk from each of these farms is shipped to one of the more than 400 licensed dairy plants in the state, or to a licensed dairy plant in another state. Chapter. ATCP 60 (Dairy Farms) lists dairy producer license and Grade “A" permit requirements, dairy farm standards, milk quality standards, procedures for examination of milk from dairy farms, and inspection and enforcement practices.
The department proposes working with industry to modernize language, definitions, and requirements for consistency with the PMO. The vast majority of dairy producers in Wisconsin have Grade “A" permits, which means that their milk, or pasteurized milk and certain other dairy products made from it, can be shipped across state and international boundaries. Milk moving in this manner, referred to as Grade “A" milk, must be produced, transported, and processed in accordance with the PMO. State regulations governing Grade “A" milk must be at least as stringent, and consistent with, the PMO. FDA revises the PMO every two years. The current ch.
ATCP 60 rules, although largely in compliance with the PMO, must be revised periodically to maintain the needed consistency with the latest version of the PMO and adapt to new innovations in the dairy industry. For example, the PMO now specifically addresses automated milking installations (“robotic" milking), while ch.
ATCP 60 does not.
The department will consider a variety of potential rule changes which relate to topics such as dairy farm water supply and well testing, reporting by dairy plants of milk quality test results, procedures and ramifications of Grade A permit suspension, variance procedures, robotic milking, and review of plumbing projects and dairy farm equipment installations. The department will also work with industry to determine whether changes in the Somatic Cell Count (SCC) standard in ch.
ATCP 60 are needed for Wisconsin to maintain a competitive position in national and international dairy markets.
As part of its overall review of ch.
ATCP 60, the department will explore alternatives, consistent with the PMO, for conducting Grade A farm inspections more efficiently. The department will also re-evaluate rules that require progressive corrective actions to be taken by dairy producers. For example, the department will assess the adequacy of the current rule specifying a corrective action to be taken after the first milk sample yielding a positive drug residue result. The department may also evaluate whether ch.
ATCP 60 provides adequate milk safety regulatory oversight when cattle sold for slaughter by a dairy producer are found to contain drug residues. The department may propose rule changes addressing these topics, as needed.
Policy alternatives
FDA revises the PMO every two years and the department must periodically revise ch.
ATCP 60 to incorporate changes to ensure compliance with the PMO. If the department does not alter the current rule, the rule may not remain consistent with the PMO, which could eventually lead to problems when the FDA audits the Wisconsin dairy inspection program for compliance. A failing regulatory audit score could jeopardize the ability of Wisconsin dairy producers and plants to participate in the Grade “A" program and to maintain Wisconsin's reputation as the Dairy State. Current regulations may not be adequate for addressing emerging economic and food safety issues related to dairy farming. For example, maintaining the current SCC standard may result in many of the state's Grade “A" dairy producers trying to meet different SCC standards if they export Grade “A" dairy products to countries with a more stringent SCC standard than the one currently in place in ch.
ATCP 60. Without a rule revision, the department would continue trying to enforce rules that were designed for more traditional milking operations without consideration of innovative dairying practices such as robotic milking. Finally, if the current rules are not revised, the department may miss opportunities to improve the cost-effectiveness of on-site dairy farm inspections.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
93.07 Department duties. It shall be the duty of the department:
(1) Regulations. To make and enforce such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it may deem necessary for the exercise and discharge of all the powers and duties of the department, and to adopt such measures and make such regulations as are necessary and proper for the enforcement by the state of chs.
93 to
100, which regulations shall have the force of law.
97.09 Rules.
(4) The department may, by rule, establish and enforce standards governing the production, processing, packaging, labeling, transportation, storage, handling, display, sale, including retail sale, and distribution of foods that are needed to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods.
97.22 Milk producers.
(8) Rule making. The department may promulgate rules to establish the fees required under sub. (2) (b) or (4) (a) or to govern the operation of dairy farms by milk producers. The rules may include standards for any of the following:
(a) The safety, wholesomeness and quality of milk.
(b) The sanitary construction and maintenance of dairy farm facilities used in milk production.
(c) The availability of safe and adequate water supplies for milk production.
(d) The sanitary construction, maintenance and cleaning of equipment and utensils used in milk production.
(e) Personnel sanitation related to milk production.
(f) Sanitary procedures for the production of milk, including but not limited to the handling, transfer, and storage of milk on a dairy farm.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.20 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, holding public hearings, and communicating with affected stakeholders. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Dairy producers and dairy plant operators will benefit from increased consistency of Wisconsin regulations with the PMO. Consumers and the department will benefit from greater cost-effectiveness in conducting on-site dairy farm inspections.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
The proposed rule makes ch.
ATCP 60 more consistent with the PMO. Although compliance with the PMO is technically a voluntary effort by state regulatory agencies, Wisconsin is periodically evaluated by the FDA for compliance with the PMO. Failure to pass the FDA audit would jeopardize the state's interstate and international dairy industry.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
This rule change is anticipated to have no negative impact, but a positive economic impact for Wisconsin's dairy industry. In many respects, it will make Wisconsin's regulations consistent with practices in other states, including those elsewhere in the Upper Midwest which have adopted the latest version of the PMO by reference. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.
8. Contact Person
Steve Ingham, Division of Food Safety Administrator, DATCP
Phone: (608) 224-4701
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Chapters ATCP 93 (existing as ch. SPS 310 — to be renumbered by LRB) and 94 (existing as ch. SPS 348 — to be renumbered by LRB); sections SPS 305.02, 305.06, 305.68, and 305.82 to 305.89, Wis. Adm. Code.
Relating to
Flammable, Combustible and Hazardous Liquids; and Petroleum and Other Liquid Fuel Products.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
1.1 Incorporating programs transferred from DSPS
With the enactment of
2013 Wisconsin Act 20 (the biannual budget bill), the state of Wisconsin transferred the
Flammable, Combustible and Hazardous Liquids program (“tanks inspection program") and
Petroleum and Other Liquid Fuel Products program (“petroleum inspection program") from the Department of Safety and Professional Services (“DSPS") to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP"). Act 20 authorizes the transfer of existing administrative rules relating to these programs from DSPS to DATCP (with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Administration). [See Section 9138, (2) (fm) and (4) (f).] The Legislative Reference Bureau will use its authority to renumber the affected rules from Chapters
SPS 310 and
348 to Chapters
ATCP 93 and
94.
Other aspects of the transfer must be addressed through administrative rulemaking. DATCP intends to initiate rule revisions to make technical and organizational changes to the portions of chs.
SPS 302 and
305 that relate specifically to the tanks and petroleum inspection programs. Chapters
SPS 302 and
305 also contain general administrative provisions (licensing, enforcement, etc.) that relate to a wide variety of DSPS regulatory programs. DATCP will consider incorporating similar provisions directly into Chs.
SPS 310 and
SPS 348 as necessary to administer the tanks and petroleum inspection programs. These changes will integrate the tanks and petroleum inspection programs into DATCP's other regulatory programs and will provide clarity to regulated industries.
1.2 Updating existing rule relating to tanks
Before these programs were transferred to DATCP (effective July 1, 2013), tanks inspection program staff and DSPS legal staff had been actively working on rule changes to SPS 310. The scope statement for this rulemaking was published in January, 2011. A working draft of a proposed rulemaking order has been transferred to DATCP. DATCP intends to evaluate and further develop this draft and incorporate many of the proposed changes into this rulemaking project. The proposed revisions would make numerous minor technical changes to the rule to make it more readable and practical. The proposed revisions would also bring the rule into alignment with current EPA standards and current generally accepted industry practices.
DATCP will also consider updating the fee structure for underground storage tank permits to conform to other DATCP licensing and permit programs. Currently, there is no financial penalty for tank operators who fail to file permit renewals by the annual expiration date. Many similar DATCP programs incorporate a late surcharge or other penalty.
1.3 Updating existing rule relating to petroleum and other liquid fuel products.
Chapter
SPS 348 incorporates by reference ASTM standards for fuel specifications and testing procedures. Many of the standards referenced in the current version of SPS 348 are from 2007 or 2008. DATCP will consider updating these references to more recent versions of the ASTM standards. The more recent standards for gasoline require gasoline to meet specifications after ethanol is mixed into the gasoline.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
History and background
During the 1980's and early 1990's, Wisconsin's tanks and petroleum inspection programs were housed within the Department of Industry Labor, and Human Relations (DILHR). These programs were transferred to the Department of Commerce (“Commerce") in 1996. They were transferred from Commerce to DSPS as part of the 2011-13 Biannual Budget (
2011 Wisconsin Act 32). Chapter
SPS 310 was previously titled chs. ILHR 10 and
Comm 10. Chapter
SPS 348 was previously titled chs. ILHR 48 and
Comm 48. In 2008, Commerce completed an extensive and comprehensive update to ch.
SPS 310 (which was ch.
Comm 10 at the time).
Proposed policies
DATCP will reorganize the rules to conform to other ATCP chapters of the administrative rules. Generally, each existing ATCP chapter consists of an individual program or subject matter, and is largely self-contained. In contrast, existing SPS chapters of the administrative code are organized by function as well as by subject matter. For example, a number of individual DSPS programs (including tank inspection and petroleum inspection) rely on ch.
SPS 302 to designate fee amounts, ch.
SPS 303 to establish administrative procedures, and ch.
SPS 305 to specify required licenses, certifications, and registrations. DATCP intends to reorganize chs.
SPS 310 and
348 to incorporate fees, enforcement provisions, licensing requirements, and other administrative topics directly into the chapters.
DATCP proposes to continue work begun by DSPS on a number of updates and revisions to ch.
SPS 310. These updates and revisions are, generally technical in nature, clarify existing requirements, or update requirements to conform to EPA requirements.
DATCP will also consider updating the fee structure for underground storage tank permits and reinspections to conform to other DATCP licensing and permit programs. Currently, there is no financial penalty for tank operators who fail to file permit renewals by the annual expiration date or tank operators who fail to fix relatively minor problems, thereby requiring inspectors to make multiple reinspection trips. Many similar DATCP programs incorporate surcharges or other penalties.
DATCP proposes to review ch.
SPS 348 and revise it as necessary to conform to recent industry practices and the latest nationally accepted fuel specifications and testing procedures (as published by ASTM International).
DATCP will also contemplate adapting by reference the engine fuel quality standards published in NIST Handbook 130. About 15 states (including Illinois but not Wisconsin's other neighbors) have adopted this model regulation.
Policy alternatives
Do nothing. If the department does not alter the structure of the existing rules, its authority to administer the tanks and petroleum inspection programs will continue to rely on a non-statutory provision (Section 9138) of
2013 Act 20. This would become increasingly impractical and confusing as time goes on.
If the department does not implement the numerous technical updates, the rule would be more difficult to understand than necessary, and remain inconsistent with the latest national standards.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
168.04 Standards. (1) The department by rule shall prescribe minimum product grade specifications for gasoline, automotive gasoline, gasoline-alcohol fuel blends, reformulated gasoline, as defined in s.
285.37 (1), and kerosene and may prescribe product grade specifications for aviation gasoline, fuel oils, and diesel fuel.
(2) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), the rules required under sub. (1) shall prohibit gasoline, automotive gasoline, gasoline-alcohol fuel blends, and reformulated gasoline, as defined in s.
285.37 (1), beginning on August 1, 2004, from containing more than 0.5%, by volume, of methyl tertiary-butyl ether.
(b) The rules required under sub. (1) shall not prohibit racing fuel used at racing events or in preparation for racing events from containing any amount of methyl tertiary-butyl ether.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, rules promulgated under this section shall be in conformity with nationally recognized standards, specifications, and classifications, such as those published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The department may not promulgate or enforce a rule prohibiting the placement of additional information on the dispensing device.
168.16 (4) The department may promulgate reasonable rules relating to the administration and enforcement of this subchapter.
168.23 Rules. (1) The department shall promulgate by rule construction, maintenance and abandonment standards applicable to tanks for the storage, handling or use of liquids that are flammable or combustible or are federally regulated hazardous substances, and to the property and facilities where the tanks are located, for the purpose of protecting the waters of the state from harm due to contamination by liquids that are flammable or combustible or are federally regulated hazardous substances. The rule shall comply with ch.
160. The rule may include different standards for new and existing tanks, but all standards shall provide substantially similar protection for the waters of the state. The rule shall include maintenance requirements related to the detection and prevention of leaks. The rule may require any person supplying heating oil to any noncommercial storage tank for consumptive use on the premises to submit to the department, within 30 days after the department requests, the location, contents and size of any such tank.
(2) The department may transfer any information which the department receives under sub. (1) to any other agency or governmental unit. The department and any such agency shall treat the name of the owner and the location of any noncommercial storage tank which stores heating oil for consumptive use on the premises, required to be submitted to the department under sub. (1), as confidential and shall not permit inspection or copying under s.
19.35 of any record containing the information.
(3) The rule promulgated under sub. (1) may require the certification or registration of persons who install, remove, clean, line, perform tightness testing on and inspect tanks and persons who perform site assessments. Any rule requiring certification or registration shall also authorize the revocation or suspension of the certification or registration. The department may not require an individual who is eligible for the veterans fee waiver program under s.
45.44 to pay any fee that may be charged pursuant to such a rule.
(4) The department shall promulgate a rule specifying fees for plan review and inspection of tanks for the storage, handling, or use of flammable or combustible liquids and for any certification or registration required under sub. (3).
(5) (a) Subject to par. (b), in addition to any fee charged by the department by rule for plan review and approval for the construction of a new or additional installation or change in operation of a previously approved installation for the storage, handling or use of a liquid that is flammable or combustible or a federally regulated hazardous substance, as defined in s.
168.21 (3), the department shall collect a groundwater fee of $100 for each plan review submittal. The moneys collected under this subsection shall be credited to the environmental fund for environmental management.
(b) Notwithstanding par. (a), an installation for the storage, handling or use of a liquid that is flammable or combustible or a federally regulated hazardous substance, as defined in s.
168.21 (3), that has a capacity of less than 1,000 gallons is not subject to the groundwater fee under par. (a).
168.28 (2) Inventory of storage tanks. The department shall undertake a program to inventory and determine the location of aboveground storage tanks and underground storage tanks. The department may require its deputies and any person engaged in the business of distributing petroleum products to provide information on the location of aboveground storage tanks and underground storage tanks.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.50 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating advisory committee meetings, holding public hearing,s and communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Businesses that design, install, inspect, or operate storage tank systems for flammable, combustible, or hazardous liquids may be impacted by this rule. This may include retail gasoline stations, fuel wholesalers or distributors, fleet operators, or farmers. It also may include petroleum equipment service companies and fire prevention inspectors.
This rule may also impact businesses that sell or distribute petroleum and other liquid fuel products; either at wholesale or retail. It may also impact businesses that manufacture, sell or distribute chemical liquids regulated under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These businesses are already regulated under the existing rule, but there may be minor changes to the specific requirements.
If DATCP adopts the model regulations published in NIST Handbook 130, businesses that sell or distribute engine lubricants may be impacted. The current rule contains technical specifications and requirements for fuel, but not lubricant. The NIST Handbook 130 contains specifications for lubricants.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
Federal regulations for aboveground storage tanks do not address fire and public safety issues or groundwater pollution issues, except for protecting potable water supply sources. Federal regulations for underground storage tanks do not address fire and public safety issues or surface water pollution issues, except for protecting potable water supply sources. The planned rule changes are not expected to conflict with these federal regulations.
The EPA regulates standards for gasoline in a number of ways. EPA regulates the amount of sulfur in gasoline and certain toxic substances that can be emitted when fuel is burned. EPA also mandates reformulated gasoline (RFG) in certain metropolitan areas. EPA also mandates that fuels sold during the summer meet certain Reid vapor pressure standards to reduce emissions that contribute to smog.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
The proposed rule may have moderate economic impact statewide and locally. The majority of the proposed rule is limited to updating and reorganizing provisions in the current rule and therefore would have a minimal economic impact — if any at all. However, adopting more recent fuel quality standards may have a moderate economic impact on certain businesses within the petroleum industry.
8. Contact Person
Kevin LeRoy, Program and Policy Analyst, DATCP
Phone: (608) 224-4928
Safety and Professional Services
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Communities.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
Not applicable.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
This rulemaking is expected to include comprehensively reviewing and updating all of the Department's rules relating to manufactured homes and manufactured-home communities in order to make the rules consistent with contemporary industry and regulatory practices, any corresponding statutory and federal aspects, and Executive Order 61.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
These chapters currently contain all of the Department's rules relating to manufactured homes and manufactured-home communities. These rules include criteria for installation of manufactured homes, construction and operation of manufactured-home communities, and corresponding credentials and fees.
The alternatives of either partially updating or not updating these rules would be less beneficial to the entities affected by these rules.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
227.11 (2) (a) of the Statutes authorizes the Department to promulgate rules interpreting any statute that is enforced or administered by the Department, if the rule is considered necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Section
101.92 (3) requires the Department to annually review the rules adopted under subchapter V of chapter 101, which addresses manufactured homes and mobile homes.
Section
101.92 (9) requires the Department to promulgate rules for licensing manufactured-home dealers and salespersons, as required under sections 101.951 and 101.952.
Sections
101.9203 (3) and
101.921 (1) (a) infer that the Department may promulgate rules authorizing a nonresident owner of a manufactured home to apply for a certificate of title without the home being subject to a security interest or without having the dealer determine that a certificate is necessary to protect the interests of a secured party.
Section
101.921 (1) (b) infers that the Department may promulgate rules authorizing a manufactured-home dealer to apply for a certificate of title naming the dealer as the owner even though not all available spaces for a dealer's reassignment on a certificate have been completed.
Section
101.921 (1) (c) infers that the Department may promulgate rules exempting a manufactured home dealer from otherwise needing to apply for a certificate of title naming the dealer as the owner of a for-sale home when all of the available spaces for a dealer's reassignment on a certificate have been completed.
Section
101.935 (2) (c) 2. requires the Department to establish fees by rule for issuing operational permits relating to manufactured-home communities.
Section
101.935 (2m) (a) 2. requires the Department to define by rule the modifications of a manufactured-home community that trigger a required inspection by the Department.
Section
101.935 (3) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules for administering and enforcing the permit process that the section requires for manufactured-home communities.
Section
101.937 (1) requires the Department to promulgate rules establishing prescribed standards for providing water or sewer service to a manufactured-home-community occupant.
Section
101.95 requires the Department to promulgate rules prescribing how manufacturers become licensed to manufacture, distribute, or sell manufactured homes.
Sections
101.951 (2) (b) 1. and
(bm) require the Department to promulgate rules establishing the license period and fees for a dealer's license.
Section
101.951 (2) (b) 2. authorizes the Department to promulgate rules establishing a uniform expiration date for all dealer licenses.
Sections
101.952 (2) (b) 1. and
(bm) require the Department to promulgate rules establishing the license period and fees for a salesperson's license.
Section
101.952 (2) (b) 2. authorizes the Department to promulgate rules establishing a uniform expiration date for all salesperson's licenses.
Section
101.953 (1) (b) requires the Department to promulgate rules defining reasonable care and maintenance for a manufactured home.
Section
101.953 (1) (d) requires the Department to promulgate rules defining manufactured homes that are uninhabitable.
Section
101.957 requires the Department to promulgate rules establishing an alternative, non-judicial dispute resolution process for defects in a manufactured home or in its installation.
Sections
101.96 (1) (a) and
(b) require the Department to promulgate rules establishing standards for safe installation of manufactured homes, and for ensuring compliance with the standards.
Section
101.96 (1) (b) requires the Department to promulgate rules establishing prescribed criteria for licensure of third-party inspectors.
Sections
101.96 (2) (b) 6.,
(br) and
(c) require the Department to promulgate rules establishing standards of financial responsibility for installers; how to demonstrate adequate experience in installation, in lieu of passing a required examination; license terms; conditions for revoking or suspending licenses; and license fees.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
200 hours.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Manufactured-home manufacturers, dealers, salespersons, installers, inspectors, and occupants, and owners or operators of manufactured-home communities.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Federal construction requirements that preempt state or local requirements for constructing manufactured homes are addressed in Title 42 of the United States Code under sections 5401 to 5425, and in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations under Part 3280. Federal minimum, model installation requirements for manufactured homes are addressed in
24 CFR 3285. Any rule revisions resulting under this scope statement will not infringe on the federal construction requirements, and will not provide less protection than the federal minimum installation requirements.
No current federal regulations were found relating to construction or operation of manufactured-home communities.
No corresponding proposed federal regulations were found.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The rule changes contemplated in this project are not expected to have any negative economic impacts on any of the entities listed above.
9. Contact Person
Sam Rockweiler, Rules Coordinator
(608) 266-0797
Safety and Professional Services —
Dentistry Examining Board
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 7, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Patient Dental Record Retention.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Dentistry Examining Board desires to develop guidelines for patient dental record retention. The issue lies with the burden of patient records storage, both in having no guidance on the time limit of retention and with records dating prior to the availability of electronic storage. Chapters
DE 1 to
13 do not contain standards in the preparation or retention of patient dental records; therefore, Chapter
DE 8, Patient Dental Records, is proposed to be created.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The Dentistry Examining Board desires guidelines for patient dental record retention to be consistent within the industry, recognizing recommendations by professional organizations, other health care providers and other states with regard to record retention. Currently, there are no polices or directives for a time limit on retention.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
15.08 (5) (b), Stats., requires all examining boards to “
…promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains, and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or profession."
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., authorizes all agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the statutes it enforces or administers, when deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose of such statutes; the section reads: “Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation
…"
Section
447.02 (2) (d), Stats., authorizes the dentistry examining board to promulgate rules: “(d) Specifying practices, in addition to the practices specified under s.
447.01 (3) (a) to
(f), that are included within the practice of dental hygiene."
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates that approximately 80 hours will be needed to perform the review and develop any needed rule changes. This time includes meeting with the Dentistry Examining Board, drafting the rule changes and processing the changes through public hearing, legislative review, and adoption. The department will assign existing staff to perform the review and develop the rule changes; no other resources are expected to be needed.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Licensees.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
The Federal health and human services (HHS) administration provides incentives for dental offices providing treatment to Medicaid patients to move to electronic health records with respect to x-rays or imagining. An Internet-based search of the U.S. Code or Federal Register revealed that these types of electronic patient dental records for Medicaid patients will be required beginning in 2016; no other laws relating to patient record requirements were found.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
It is anticipated that after rule promulgation, hard copy record storage may decrease over time, thus resulting in lowered overhead costs to the healthcare provider.
9. Contact Person
Jean MacCubbin, (608) 266-0955.
Safety and Professional Services —
Massage Therapy and Bodywork Therapy Affiliated Credentialing Board
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 10, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Unprofessional Conduct.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objective of this proposed rule is to modernize the unprofessional conduct rules governing licensed massage therapists and bodywork therapist to reflect current trends in the profession.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Currently, Wis. Admin Code s.
MTBT 5.01 — Unprofessional Conduct sets forth the existing grounds for disciplinary actions against massage therapists and bodywork therapists in Wisconsin. With the passage of
2009 Wisconsin Act 355, the Massage Therapy and Bodywork Council was transformed into the Massage Therapy and Bodywork Therapy Affiliated Credentialing Board. (MTBT Board). The Act granted the newly formed MTBT Board rule-making authority and provided that the MTBT Board would now be attached to the Medical Examining Board. The MTBT Board has seized this opportunity to undertake a review of its current unprofessional conduct rules.
The legislature fully purposed delegating rule-making authority to the MTBT Board to establish ethical standards of conduct for massage therapist and bodywork therapist as evidenced by s.
460.04, Stats., which states the MTBT Board may promulgate rules that establish standards that govern the professional conduct of MTBT licensees. The Board's review of the current unprofessional conduct rules will not result in a significant policy change but rather a further clarification of the ethical goals of the profession.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., discusses the parameters of an agency's rule-making authority stating, an agency “may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if it exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation." Section
227.01 (1), Stats., defines agency as a board. The Massage Therapy and Bodywork Therapy Affiliated Credentialing Board falls within this definition. Therefore, it may promulgate administrative rules which interpret the statutes it enforces or administers as long as the proposed rules do not exceed the proper interpretation of the statute.
Section
460.04 (2) (a), Stats., authorizes the MTBT Board to promulgate rules, “that govern the professional conduct of license holders in practicing massage therapy or bodywork therapy."
This section is an express grant of authority to draft rules regarding unprofessional conduct. Section
460.14 (2) (a) through
(j), Stats., sets forth a number of grounds for disciplinary action by the MTBT Board. The Board may reprimand, deny, limit, suspend, or revoke a licensee including but not limited to the following conduct: making a material misstatement in an application for licensure, false or deceptive advertising, practicing under another's name, practicing while impaired by alcohol or other drugs, making a false statement, engaging in conduct that jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of a client, engaging in conduct that illustrates a lack of knowledge or skills as a massage therapist or bodywork therapist.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that state employees may spend up to 70 hours in developing the proposed rules.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
MTBT instructors, students who are currently matriculating in MTBT educational programs, and licensed MTBT professionals.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
None.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The Department estimates that this rule will not result in any economic impact on small businesses.
9. Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood, (608) 261-4438.
Safety and Professional Services —
Optometry Examining Board
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Updating board and profession practices.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Optometry Examining Board reviewed their rules per Executive Order #61. The Board proposes to update the chapter on organization of the Board as well as update unprofessional conduct and the use of diagnostic and therapeutic pharmaceutical agents and removal of superficial foreign bodies from an eye chapters to reflect current standards and practices.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Currently the Board is required to use the latest copyright of Robert's Rules of Order to conduct business. The Board also has antiquated procedures for membership in international association of boards and payment of fees for delegates.
In addition, the Board would like to modify s.
Opt 5.11 and ch.
Opt 6 to reflect current practices in an effort to reduce the burden on business and remove outdated standards.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
15.08 (5) (b). Each examining board: shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or profession.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
75 hours.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Board members, licensees, and consumers.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
None.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
There is minimal or no economic impact of implementing this rule and is not likely to have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
9. Contact Person
Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator
(608) 261-2377
