Oak Hall Room, Fitchburg Community Center

5520 Lacy Road

Fitchburg

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Toni Herkert at (608) 266-0161 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Toni Herkert, Bureau of Watershed Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 12, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Herkert.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11 (2) (a) and 285.11, Stats., interpreting s. 285.11 (6), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to ss. NR 400.02 (162) and 424.05, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds" or “VOC" and VOC emission control requirements for yeast manufacturing facilities. The Department is proposing the revision to the definition of "VOC" in s. NR 400.02 (162) to be consistent with EPA's federal definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The revision includes adding four compounds to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC and exclusion of one further compound from the definition but only for purposes of VOC emission limitation or content requirements and not for purposes of all recordkeeping, emission reporting, and inventory requirements. The Department is also proposing to revise the VOC emission control requirements for yeast manufacturing in s. NR 424.05 to address an inconsistency with requirements in the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for yeast manufacturing at 40 CFR part 63 Subpart CCCC.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:

a. Types of small businesses affected: facilities using t-butyl acetate or products that contain t-butyl acetate and emit VOCs in excess of 6000 pounds per year

b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required: Identical to requirements for compliance with the current rule

c. Description of professional skills required: Identical to requirement for compliance with the current rule

The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:

SmallBusinessReg.Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearing will be held on:

Monday, July 11, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.

Room 140-141, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters

2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive

Milwaukee, WI

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Robert Eckdale at (608) 266-2856 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

There is no fiscal impact anticipated.

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Farrokh Ghoreishi, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until July 11, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained by contacting Proposed Rules, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, phone: (608) 266-7718; FAX (608) 267-0560.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Regulation and Licensing in s. 227.11 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss. 440.03 (1), (2) and 440.04 (7), Wis. Stats., the Department of Regulation and Licensing will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss. RL 1.03 (4), 1.04 (title), 1.05 (title), 1.07 (intro.) and (3), 1.08 (1) and (4), 1.09 (5), 1.11 and 1.12; and to create ss. RL 1.03 (1g) and (1r), 1.04 (3), 1.05 (3) and 1.09 (5m), relating to cheating on an examination and breach of examination security.

Date:   July 12, 2005

Time:   10:00 A.M.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue

  Room 179A

  Madison, Wisconsin

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email to pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Written comments must be received on or before July 25, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Statutes interpreted: Sections 440.03 (1), (2) and 440.04 (7), Stats.

Statutory authority: Section 227.11 (2), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority: Section 440.04 (7), Stats., provides that the secretary of the Department of Regulation and Licensing, “…provide examination development, administration, research and evaluation services as required." The general duties and powers of the department, s. 440.03 (1), Stats., provides that, “The department may promulgate rules defining uniform procedures to be used by the department…for receiving, filing and investigating complaints, for commencing disciplinary proceedings and for conducting hearings." In promulgating rules concerning cheating on examinations or breach of examination security, the department seeks to codify its practices and policies concerning these matters.

Related statute or rule: Sections 440.07, 440.974 (1) (a), 443.12 (1), 446.03 (1), 447.07, 448.06 (2), 455.09 (1) (d), and 456.10 (1) (c), Stats.

Plain language analysis: The Department of Regulation and Licensing, its attached examining boards and affiliated credentialing boards currently administer over 25,000 examinations per year. Cheating and maintaining examination security are a growing problem. These rule changes provide uniform procedures for providing due process while codifying existing practices and policies in the handling and adjudication of cases of cheating or breaches of examination security.

Current Wisconsin credentialing board rules vary in specificity and are not updated to deal with current technology. The department finds it necessary to create a uniform standard and procedure for dealing with the instances of cheating that would combine best practices into one regulation, and would, in addition, avoid the need to update and promulgate separate identical rules for each credentialing authority.

SECTION 1. Definitions are created for the terms “breach of examination security" and “cheating on an examination." The definition of “breach of examination security" is meant to address the intentional removal from an examination site and/or theft of examination, or theft of examination questions either for personal use or for profit. It should be noted that the development of such questions is an expensive activity and a breach of the security of the examination questions necessitates developing new questions. The definition of “cheating on an examination" attempts to capture the numerous variants of cheating that have been experienced by examination specialists.

SECTION 2. The definition of “denial review proceeding" is broadened to include use of class 1 proceedings to determine whether an individual has cheated on an examination or there has been a breach of examination security.

SECTION 3. The definition of “office of examinations" is created to indicate that the reference is to the Department of Regulation and Licensing's office of examinations.

SECTION 4. The title of s. RL 1.04 is amended to indicate that the consequences of cheating or a breach of examination security are treated therein.

SECTION 5. The range of consequences which may be imposed is indicated. Notice that distribution of information concerning the imposition of consequences for cheating or for breach of examination security is indicated. Notice that facilitation by a barber or cosmetology school or instructor in cheating or breach of security of an examination is indicated.

SECTION 6. The title of s. RL 1.05 is amended to indicate that the consequences of cheating or a breach of examination security are treated therein.

SECTION 7. Section RL 1.05 (3) is created to provide for notice to an individual following a determination by the office of examinations that there is probable cause to believe that the individual has cheated on an examination or breached the security of an examination.

SECTION 8. The Request for Hearing section at s. RL 1.07 is amended to include requests after a determination that an individual has cheated on or breached the security of an examination.

SECTION 9. The Review of Request for Hearing section at s. RL 1.08 (1) is amended to include Requests for Hearing based on determinations of cheating or a breach of examination security. Section RL 1.08 (4) is amended to indicate that the office of examinations has the burden of proof by satisfactory evidence in class 1 hearings concerning cheating on or breach of security of examinations.

SECTION 10. Section RL 1.09 (5) is amended to include the office of examinations in this subsection which indicates what evidence may be presented and considered at hearing.

SECTION 11. Section RL 1.09 (5m) instructs the hearing presiding officer to insure that the examination security is maintained during the proceedings.

SECTION 12. Section RL 1.11 is amended to indicate that an individual's failure to appear at their hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the credentialing authority. Section RL 1.12 is amended to allow for withdrawal of a request for hearing on a determination of cheating on or breach of the security of an examination.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies: Cheating on licensing examinations is an ongoing and significant problem. Instances of cheating have increased in recent years with the advent of new technology.

Three well-publicized recent national examples are: The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy sued 4 candidates for trading more than 100 questions from the national licensing examination via an Internet chat room. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy suspended its Educational Equivalency Examination for seven months after determining that 15 foreign candidates traded 200 national examination questions on 2 web sites in Korea and India. The National Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners refused to validate scores from four U.S. schools after determining that hundreds of students traded examination material by email and study guides.

Numbers of instances have been increasing at the state credentialing level, as well. In the twenty years from 1981 to 2001, there were 6 identified instances of cheating on record at the Department. There were about 15,000 administrations per year at the start of that period, gradually increasing to about 25,000 administrations today. In the four years since 2001, there have been 8 instances of cheating identified on state credentialing examinations. These instances include instances of identical answer sheets, missing booklets and copying questions to remove them from the room.

The increasing culture of cheating has been noted in the recent book by Gregory Cizek, Cheating on Tests, c 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, and numerous articles such as, “New Calculators Force NCEES to Tighten Exam Security Policy," Engineering Times, Feb 2004; “Exam Security and High-Tech Cheating", The Bar Examiner, vol 67, no 3, c 1998. The online publication, “Cheating in the News" publishes five to ten recent articles each month about cheating around the world, often on state assessments of high school performance or college entrance examinations.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report: The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.

The department estimates the right to appeal may be used to require one hearing a year. The projected value of the staff time to conduct one hearing of this type is $300.

Pursuant to s. 227.114 (1), Stats., these proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at christopher.klein@drl.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 266-8608.

Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935. Email pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us.

Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:

Comments may be submitted to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935; email pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

TEXT OF RULE

SECTION 1. RL 1.03 (1g) and (1r) are created to read:

RL 1.03 (1g) “Breach of examination security" means any of the following:

(a) Removing from the examination room any examination materials without authorization.

(b) Reproducing, or assisting a person in reproducing, any portion of the credentialing examination by any means and without authorization.

(c) Paying a person to take the credentialing examination to discover the content of any portion of the credentialing examination.

(d) Obtaining examination questions or other examination materials, except by specific authorization before, during, or after an examination.

(e) Using, or purporting to use, improperly obtained examination questions or materials to instruct or prepare an applicant for the credentialing examination.

(f) Selling, distributing, buying, receiving or having unauthorized possession of any portion of a future, current, or previously administered credentialing examination.

(1r) “Cheating on an examination" includes but is not limited to:

(a) Communicating with other persons inside or outside of the examination room concerning examination content using any means of communication while the examination is being administered.

(b) Copying the answers of another applicant, or permitting answers to be copied by another applicant.

(c) Substituting another person for the applicant who writes one or more of the examination answers or papers in the place of the applicant.

(d) Referring to “crib notes," textbooks or other unauthorized information sources inside or outside the examination room while the examination is being administered.

(e) Disclosing the nature or content of any examination question or answer to another person prior to, during, or subsequent to the conclusion of the examination.

(f) Removing or attempting to remove any examination materials, notes or facsimiles of examination content such as photo, audiovisual, or electronic records from the examination room.

(g) Violating rules of conduct of the examination.

SECTION 2. RL 1.03 (4) is amended to read: