Scope statements
Barbering and Cosmetology Examining Board
Subject
Removing household bleach as a disinfectant.
Policy analysis
Objective of the rule. By removing sodium hypochlorite (bleach) from the rules would clarify to the licensee that it is not considered a high-level disinfectant and should not be relied upon to destroy all bacterial contaminants to a safe level as judged by public health requirements. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the EPA do not consider bleach as disinfectant/sterilizing for submersion and should only be used for household type applications and should not be referenced as a disinfectant.
Disinfection is the destruction of pathogenic and other kinds of microorganisms by physical or chemical means. Disinfection is less lethal than sterilization, because it destroys the majority of recognized pathogenic microorganisms, but not necessarily all microbial forms (e.g., bacterial spores). Disinfection does not ensure the degree of safety associated with sterilization processes.
Disinfectant products are divided into two major types: hospital and general use. Hospital type disinfectants are the most critical to infection control and are used on medical and dental instruments, floors, walls, bed linens, toilet seats, and other surfaces. General disinfectants are the major source of products used in households, swimming pools, and water purifiers.
The active ingredient in household bleach is not registered for use as a high-level disinfectant by the EPA. Therefore, household bleach is not an appropriate high-level disinfectant. High level disinfectants must be labeled as an EPA registered antimicrobial pesticide. High-level disinfectants must be labeled as an EPA registered antimicrobial pesticide. The CDC has also stated when studying the product Clorox that it was not considered a high-level disinfectant.
There are several factors that make bleach unreliable as a high-level disinfectant. One is the water being used. How hard the water is makes a great difference in the dilution results. The porousness and the bio-load of the surface that is bleached also will cause variations in its effectiveness. There also needs to be extreme accuracy when diluting the bleach and if there is not, certain bacterial spores will not be killed. Bleach also cannot make claims about efficacy. Bleach labels do not say what it will kill, as other disinfectants do.
Comparison with federal requirements
The federal government does not regulate barbers and cosmetologists, and a search of the United States Code Services (USCS) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) returned no entries for sterilization, disinfectants or bleach for barbers and/or cosmetologists.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Total: 150 hours.
Entities affected by the rule
Licensed establishments - barbering and cosmetology, aesthetics, electrology and manicuring.
Higher Educational Aids Board
Subject
Objective of the rule. Mandated by
2001 a. 16 and required for proper administration of the program.
Policy analysis
The
2001 Wisconsin Act 16 created s.
39.393 which provides loans to Wisconsin residents who are enrolled at least half-time at an eligible in-state institution that prepares them to be licensed as either a RN or LPN nurse. The Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) administers this program under s.
39.393.
Comparison with federal requirements
These rules are not intended to address any proposed or existing federal regulations.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Estimated hours of staff time - 30 hours.
Entities affected by the rule
Wisconsin residents attending post-secondary institutions of higher education.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. Rules that classify and regulate invasive species.
Policy analysis
The rules will group invasive species into different categories and regulate as necessary the importation, possession, sale and transport of invasive species in order to prevent established invasive species from spreading.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
1.5 years.
Comparison with federal requirements
Existing federal regional and state classification systems were examined and components of those models were incorporated, as appropriate.
Entities affected by the rule
Affected parties may include the plant nursery industry & agriculture industries, fish farmers, bait dealers, aquarium and ornamental fish dealers, game farms, landowners, anglers, and gardeners.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. On May 18, 2005, the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was promulgated. This rule establishes mercury control requirements for new and existing coal-fired utility boilers. The rule sets a declining cap on mercury emissions in two distinct phases, 2010 and 2018, for each state. A national trading program has been developed as an option for states to achieve their mercury emission cap. New sources (those that commence construction after January 30, 2004) must meet a standard of performance (pounds of mercury per megawatt-hour) and any mercury emissions from these new sources must also be accommodated under the state mercury cap.
From the date of promulgation states have eighteen (18) months to submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a state plan to meet the requirements of the CAMR. Failure to submit a state plan by November 18, 2006, will result in the imposition of a federal plan to implement the CAMR in Wisconsin.
Policy analysis
An acceptable state plan must meet the requirements of section 111, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, of the federal Clean Air Act. This would include a description of the control measures that will meet the statewide mercury budget and fully adopted rules with the CAMR compliance dates and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions. States may join the national trading program by adopting the components of the model trading rule USEPA has developed.
State Mercury Rule Interaction
On October 1, 2004, Wisconsin began implementing requirements to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers operated by major electric utilities in the state. These requirements are included in Chapter
NR 446, Control of Mercury Emissions, Wis. Adm. Code. The reduction requirements and compliance schedule in the state rule are more restrictive than the CAMR. Although states are not prohibited from having more stringent requirements than CAMR, the state rule requires that the Department adopt revisions to reflect federal requirements within eighteen (18) months of the promulgation of federal mercury standard. This would include adoption of the federal emission limitations as well as administrative requirements such as monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping.
Flexibility in the CAMR
The CAMR allows states the flexibility to determine how to achieve the required mercury reductions including whether to join the national trading program that would allow interstate trading of mercury allowances. In addition, each state must determine how to allocate the mercury budget that USEPA established to the affected utility units and companies. The 2010 to 2017 annual budget for Wisconsin is 1,780 pounds of mercury which declines to 702 pounds of mercury in 2018 and thereafter. A critical issue is the distribution of this allocation among the four affected electric utilities in the state.
Legal challenge to CAMR
Wisconsin is one of eleven states that have filed a lawsuit challenging the cap and trade approach in the CAMR to achieve mercury emission reductions. The contention is that this approach is inappropriate for a hazardous air pollutant like mercury because meaningful reductions can be significantly delayed and local mercury deposition may not be addressed. These same states, in a separate action, have also challenged USEPA's decision not to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants under the provisions of section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants, of the federal Clean Air Act. USEPA chose instead to use the provisions in section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act that allows a more flexible compliance schedule and approach to achieving emission reductions than section 112 provisions. The outcome of these actions may affect this rule revision.
Statutory authority
