Emergency rules may be promulgated prior to March 1, 2001, the effective date of the Act's provisions.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota do not have rules relating to medication administration training requirements.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
To determine the training requirements related to medication administration, the Department first reviewed examples of such training from other states and school districts. The Department's drafts of training requirements were then reviewed by experts in the field including the Wisconsin Association of School Nurses, Wisconsin Department of Health Services public health nursing program, pharmacists and medical doctors. Suggestions from these groups helped to shape the final proposed training requirements. Guidelines for medication training follow similar frequency in other areas of healthcare such as use cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated defibrillation by unlicensed assistive personnel.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses
N/A
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules require individuals who administer medications to pupils under s.
118.29, Stats., to have medication
skill training annually and medication
knowledge training bi-annually. The rules require the skill training to be documented by a school nurse, medical provider or adequately trained parent. The rules do not specify what entity must provide the knowledge training only that it must be approved by the department.
Local fiscal effect
The knowledge portion of the training may be obtained by using department resources (webcast and SchoolMeds On-Line Medication Training Program) free of charge. However, a school district may provide or contract for such training if approved by the department. It is assumed that most school districts will use the resources provided by the department. Therefore, any costs associated with providing the knowledge portion of the training by the school district will be voluntary and is indeterminate.
The skill portion of the training will have to be provided by a school nurse, medical provider or adequately trained parent. For school districts that have hired or contracted school nursing services, the skill verification for medication administration would likely be the continued responsibility of the nurse at no additional cost. Eighty percent of school districts employ a school nurse. Of the remaining 20 percent, some school districts contract for nursing services and some school districts may have an adequately trained parent willing to verify the skill portion of training.
For school districts that do not have a school nurse or parent, the cost of contracting with a nursing service is $30 per hour. The time necessary for the nurse to verify the skill would take approximately 10 minutes for each route of medication. The rate of children with special health care needs in Wisconsin statewide is 13.9 percent. However, it is unknown how many different routes of medication may need to be administered to these students. It is also unknown how many of these students attend a school district that does not employ a school nurse. Therefore, costs associated with providing training needed to verify skill medication administration are indeterminate.
State fiscal effect
DPI provides the knowledge training as described above. If this training is not used by school districts, DPI must approve the training used. Costs associated with providing and reviewing training will be absorbed by the department.
Private schools fiscal effect
As with public school districts, the costs to private schools are indeterminate. However, the costs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Hearing
Public Service Commission
(PSC # 1-AC-235)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to renumber section
PSC 168.06 (5); renumber and amend section
PSC 168.13 (2) (a); amend section
PSC 168.09 (2); and create section
PSC 168.06 (5) (b) and
168.13 (2) (b) and
(c). The proposed amendments would, respectively, establish certain criteria for the recertification of resellers; include section
196.859, Stats., in the list of assessment statutes that apply to large resellers; and clarify the procedure for involuntary revocation of a reseller certificate.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to section
227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rule changes at the time and location below:
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 11, 2011
Tuesday
10:00am
|
Public Service Commission
Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
610 Whitney Way
Madison, WI 53705
|
This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.
The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to receive this document in a different format should contact the Docket Coordinator, as indicated in the following paragraph, as soon as possible.
Submittal of Written Comments
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until January 19, 2011, at noon (January 18, 2011, at noon, if filed by fax). All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-235. File by one mode only.
Industry:
File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website,
http://psc.wi.gov.
Members of the Public:
If filing electronically: Use the Public Comments system or the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. Both of these may be accessed from the commission's website,
http://psc.wi.gov.
If filing by mail, courier, or hand delivery: Address as shown in the box on page 1.
If filing by fax: Send fax comments to (608) 266-3957. Fax filing
cover sheet MUST state “Official Filing," the docket number 1-AC-235, and the number of pages (limited to 25 pages for fax comments).
Comments Due:
|
Address Comments to:
|
January 19, 2011
Noon
FAX Due:
January 18, 2011
Noon
|
Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707-7854
FAX: (608) 266-3957
|
Analysis Prepared by Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Statutory authority and explanation of authority
Section
227.11, Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section
196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section
196.02 (3), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Sections
196.01 (1d) (c) and
196.203 (2), Stats., define resellers and require their certification to provide telecommunications services in Wisconsin. Section
196.859, Stats., requires the commission to assess telecommunications providers to recover the budgeted costs of the enforcement of the telecommunications trade practices regulations under the jurisdiction of the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. Pursuant to its authority in ss.
196.44 and
196.02 (3), Stats., the commission may promulgate a rule interpreting and applying s.
196.859, Stats., to reseller telecommunications providers.
Statute(s) interpreted
The proposed regulations interpret ss.
196.203 (3),
196.03 (1) and
(6), and
196.44, Stats. Sections
196.203 (3) and
196.03 (1) and
(6), Stats., require that a telecommunications utility, which includes resellers in the alternative telecommunications utility category, provide reasonably adequate services and that such services be priced at just and reasonable rates. For a telecommunications provider, whether a service is reasonably adequate or a rate or charge is just and reasonable is determined by a multi-factor test in ss.
196.03 (1) and
(6), Stats. The multi-factor test applies when evaluating what is in the public interest, convenient or necessary with respect to the services and rates and charges of a telecommunications provider. Certification of a reseller is effected under s.
196.203, Stats., which includes in the certification process the commission's right and opportunity to impose provisions of ch.
196, Stats., that the commission believes are necessary for protection of the public interest.
Protection of the public interest is effected by ensuring that only properly certified resellers are doing business in Wisconsin. A streamlined revocation process as proposed aids the elimination from the market of resellers that are unable or unwilling to comply with the law. In addition, the mechanism of voiding of reseller arrangements, contracts, and billings for operations without proper certification is an administrative device to compel resellers to properly obtain and maintain certification at the risk of repaying their Wisconsin-generated revenues gained during unauthorized operations. This device is a means of enforcing provisions of ch.
196, Stats., under s.
196.44, Stats. However, an amendment is proposed here to better calibrate the refund obligation to the nature of the deficiency causing the loss of certification. If a reseller lost certification and then re-applied, the criteria proposed to evaluate the applicant reseller's ability to comply with regulations would strike a better balance between the refund obligation and the cause of the loss of certification. Greater flexibility will aid a speedier return of the applicant reseller to full certification.
Section
196.44, Stats., permits the appropriate enforcement of s.
196.859, Stats., as a provision in ch.
196, Stats., subject to commission enforcement. The proposed rule to make larger resellers subject to assessment is consistent with the commission's discretion and duty to engage in practical and economical enforcement of a legislative direction for the recovery of budgeted costs of the enforcement of the telecommunications trade practices regulations of the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
Related rules consist of the other provisions of ch.
PSC 168 dealing with resale of telecommunications services and the certification of resellers. That chapter identifies telecommunications services that are legally available for resale, providers that are subject to reseller certification, the application for certification, and how certification is continued through annual report filings. Once an entity is certified as a reseller, the related rules identify the permissible activities in which a reseller may engage and the statutes with which the reseller must comply. Annual reports on such activities are required, which, if not filed, may trigger the revocation of certification. Other activities are identified that may also justify opening a revocation proceeding. Finally, a reseller may also voluntarily surrender its certificate to cease Wisconsin intrastate operations, but subject to compliance with any outstanding commission orders.
Summary and analysis of the rule amendments
The proposed amendment to PSC 168.06 (5) establishes five criteria that the commission may use to evaluate the amount of revenues that need to be refunded due to operations without certification, as required to enforce PSC 168.06 (1). The proposed criteria afford the commission flexibility to judge each reseller re-applying for certification according to its individual circumstances, taking into account the reason for loss of certification, the cooperation of the applicant, past conduct while operating without authority, the number and type of consumer complaints, and the impact of a proposed refund upon the financial viability of the applicant. This benefits the applicant by informing it as to the requisites for re-certification and by better accommodating equitable arguments that a full refund might be disproportionate to the nature of the failure that resulted in the prior de-certification.
The proposed amendment to PSC 168.09 (2) to insert s.
196.859, Stats., in the list of assessment statutes applicable to larger resellers better informs them of their statutory responsibilities. This treatment accords with the commission's decision in docket 5-TI-1990 in November 2009, to impose the statute on larger resellers by exercise of the reserved power to amend any reseller's existing certificate. Resellers having intrastate Wisconsin gross operating revenues in a calendar year that did not exceed $200,000 were excluded in that order and remain excluded in this proposed rule amendment. Commission experience fairly suggests that it would be burdensome to require an annual report from smaller providers where the costs of commission processing and provider compliance would likely exceed the few dollars of liability that would accrue to the reseller but for the exemption.
Finally, the proposed amendment of the revocation procedure under PSC 168.13 (2) clarifies and streamlines the revocation process by clearly stating the opportunity to cure non-compliance within the timeline of a revocation proceeding, but before the revocation process proceeds to a formal trial-type hearing. The current language tends to suggest that an objecting respondent reseller should petition for a hearing when in fact a proceeding with an opportunity for hearing is already underway by the commission's noticing an intention to revoke certification. The proposed amendment clarifies that during the initial 30-day window, the reseller can choose either to object and proceed to hearing or to elect to cure deficiencies to avoid the sanction of revocation.
Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations
There are no known comparable rules at the federal level under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
Section
196.859, Stats., relates to an assessment by the commission for telecommunications utility trade practices. Such an assessment is apparently unique to Wisconsin. There is no similar rule in any of the neighboring states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota.
The neighboring states do not have regulations comparable to the proposed rule amendments to provide flexibility in granting re-certification and streamlining the revocation process. Michigan does not certify resellers at all. While the other three states do have reseller certification procedures, if a reseller lost its certification and then re-applied, each of those states would treat the applicant reseller as if it were seeking an original certification. However, such an applicant would be subject to limited additional staff scrutiny as to whether the cause for the termination of the prior certification had been remedied. Such additional scrutiny is not codified in any rules, however. None of the three states has Wisconsin's refund obligation for revenues obtained during unauthorized operations. The criteria in proposed PSC 168.06 (5) (b) would be unique to Wisconsin.
Effect on Small Business
No specific factual or analytical studies were conducted as to the proposed changes, or with respect to the effects on small businesses. The proposed amendment to PSC 168.09 (2) is intended to avoid smaller reselling entities, especially as the administrative costs for both the commission and the provider would likely exceed the annual assessment liability, which in many cases, based on other assessment statutes administered by the commission, could be quite small.
Anecdotal experience from prior commission applications and proceedings support the amendment of PSC 168.13 (2) and PSC 168.06 (5) (b), as simplifying procedures and thus creating savings and efficiencies in administrative operations for both the reseller and the commission.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rule changes may affect small businesses, but generally in a way that affords them benefits. No new professional skills will be required of a small business on account of the rule.
The establishment of criteria that may mitigate the current refund of revenues received while operating without certification will provide an opportunity for a small business to present facts, without need of counsel, to show why refunds would not be fair or could adversely affect the economic viability of the company. The proposed rule essentially allows equitable arguments to be made to reduce the refund without imperiling the company and to expedite a reseller's return to certification in good standing.
The insertion of s.
196.859, Stats. (telecommunications utility trade practices), among those assessment statutes applicable to certain larger resellers has already been applied by order in docket 5-TI-1990. The order in that docket applied s.
196.859, Stats., to large resellers having annual gross operating revenues derived from Wisconsin intrastate operations of $200,000 or more. The smallest resellers will continue to be exempt from reporting if they have gross operating revenues under $200,000 in a calendar year, as they would otherwise have no duty to file any revenue data with the commission. It would not be worth the commission expense to force small resellers to file annual reports to permit levying assessments under s.
196.859, Stats., that likely would not exceed the cost of preparing and filing the necessary reports.
The last rule change proposing an amendment to the certification revocation procedure clarifies the process. It permits resellers to quickly comprehend their choices: (a) compliance to retain good standing; (b) default to permit the revocation without opposition; or (c) opposition to revocation by going to a contested case hearing. The current rule's lack of clarity suggests an additional petition process for hearing when it was originally intended that there be one proceeding to encompass both an opportunity to cure deficiencies and the right to resort to hearing, if necessary.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate
State Fiscal Effects
There are no estimated state fiscal effects from the draft revisions to the Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule (PSC 168). A state fiscal effect would occur if the revisions increased or decreased state staff workload, but the proposed rule is not anticipated to change workload for state staff.
The Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule revision 1) clarifies the process under which the Commission considers the amount of customer refunds required of resellers who operate without certification, 2) clarifies the process under which resellers may file an objection to revocation of certification, and 3) makes administrative rule consistent with Commission order under docket 5-TI-1990 and applies s.
196.859 to resellers with annual gross operating revenues, derived from Wisconsin intrastate operations, of $200,000 or more. The rule change to apply s.
196.859 to resellers with intrastate revenues of $200,000 or more is consistent with current policy and will not change state staff workload. The revisions clarifying the information the Commission will consider in calculating potential refunds to consumers and in finalizing revocation proceedings could streamline state staff work processes. The volume of reseller recertification requests is very small, but can be time-consuming in the one element usually of concern to resellers, the amount of refund due to operations without proper certification. It is anticipated that the flexibility provided in the proposed criteria applicable to establishing and/or reducing required refunds would likely permit much faster resolution of this primary issue of contention. A small, but unquantifiable, increment in staff processing efficiency is expected. Therefore, the proposed rule is estimated to have no state fiscal effect.
Local Fiscal Effects
The revised Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule is not estimated to have a local fiscal effect. A local fiscal effect would occur if telecommunication service rates or refunds for customers, which include Local Governments, were affected by this proposed rule. The revisions to the rule are not anticipated to change service rates. In addition, the revisions clarifying process under which the Commission considers the amount of customer refunds required of resellers who operate without certification will not change Commission policy in determining the amount of customer refunds required; so the proposed rule will not affect refund amounts. Therefore, the revised Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule is not estimated to have a local fiscal effect.
State fiscal effect
No State Fiscal Effect.
Local fiscal effect
No local government costs.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Text Of Proposed Rule
Section 1. PSC 168.06 (5) is renumbered 168.06 (5) (a).
SECTION 2. PSC 168.06 (5) (b) is created to read:
PSC 168.06 (5) (b) If a reseller is seeking recertification after a prior certification under this chapter expired or was revoked by the commission and it had operated in Wisconsin without certification, the commission may consider the following factors in determining any repayment, refund, or credit respecting the reseller's void arrangements, contracts, and billings under sub. (1):
1. The reason for the failure to obtain certification of its operations under this chapter.
