The Iowa Department of Public Health administers the Iowa Uniform Plumbing Code that recently adopted the 2009 edition of the IPC with amendments.

The Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Services, Bureau of Construction Codes developed the 2003 Michigan Plumbing Code that became effective December 31, 2003. Based on the IPC, the code includes state amendments, and is undergoing its third update and revision in 2010.

The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Building Codes and Standards Division administers the Minnesota Plumbing Code, a state written uniform code that was revised in 2009.

The methodology for the proposed revisions of the Wisconsin Uniform Plumbing Code, chapters Comm 81 to 84, which became effective March 1, 2009, includes a review and assessment by staff of code issues that require clarification.

In addition, the review and assessment process involved the participation of the Plumbing Advisory Code Council (PACC). The members of that Council represent the many stakeholders involved in the plumbing industry including designers, inspectors, labor and building contractors. (A listing of the Plumbing Advisory Code Council is provided at the end of this analysis.)

An assessment of the department's resources relating to the review of plumbing plans indicates that the department has the capacity to review more projects at this time. The department estimates that lowering of the threshold from 16 plumbing fixtures to 11 fixtures requiring plan review would result in an average annual revenue increase of $198,000.

The proposal to require continuing education for the renewal of a cross connection control tester license was developed by a special task force and approved by the PACC. Stakeholders from across the state served as members of the CCC task force.

The proposed revision relating to sump pump size in elevator pits comes from the Conveyance Safety Code Council and is endorsed by the PACC and the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Society of Sanitary Engineering. All three organizations concur that the current requirement is excessive, and recommend a more practical sump pump size to accommodate ground water seepage into elevator pits.

The department used the Plumbing Advisory Code Council (PACC) to gather and analyze information on potential impacts in complying with both the technical and administrative requirements of the codes. Many small businesses belong to the industry associations that sit on the advisory council. A responsibility of council members is to bring forth concerns that their respective organizations may have with the requirements including economic impact. (A list of the members serving on the PACC is provided at the end of this analysis.)

In addition to posting rule development and council activities on the department's web site, the department offers an Email subscription service that is available to all small businesses. This service provides Email notification of council meetings, meeting agendas and council meeting progress reports so small businesses can follow proposed code changes.

The proposed rules relating to plan review and thresholds would have a minimal direct impact on small business. Plan review fees for a plumbing plan project involving 11 to 16 plumbing fixtures will vary on several factors, including the type of fixtures involved and the size of the building drain and water service. The department estimates that a plan submitter of these types of projects may incur fees of $200 to $300.

The department believes the rules will not increase the effect on small businesses from what the current rules impose on them. An economic impact report is not required pursuant to s. 227.137, Stats.

The Department has prepared a preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed rules. The preliminary recommendation is a finding of no significant impact. Copies of the preliminary EA are available from the Department on request and will be available at the public hearings. Requests for the EA and comments on the EA should be directed to:

Written comments will be accepted until July 15, 2010

The proposed rules will affect any business involved with the ownership, design, construction and installation, inspection, repair and maintenance of plumbing.

There are no additional reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance with the rules.

There are no additional professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

No.

The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce is Carol Dunn, who may be contacted at telephone (608) 267-0297, or Email at carol.dunn@wisconsin.gov.

The proposed rules relating to plan review and thresholds would have a minimal direct impact on small business. Plan review fees for a plumbing plan project involving 11 to 15 plumbing fixtures will vary on several factors, including the type of fixtures involved and the size of the building drain and water service. The department estimates that a plan submitter of these types of projects may incur fees of $200 to $300.

An assessment of the department's resources relating to the review of plumbing plans indicates that the department has the capacity to review more projects at this time. The department estimates that lowering of the threshold from 16 plumbing fixtures to 11 fixtures requiring plan review would result in an average annual revenue increase of $198,000.

The department anticipates that the workload associated with the proposed code change can be managed with current information technology and within current staff levels. In addition, the proposed rule do not increase or decrease the administrative and enforcement aspects at the state and local level.

Increase existing revenues.

None.

PRO.

N/A.

No significant effect.

None are anticipated.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss. 551.406 (5), 551.412 (5), 551.605 (1), 553.31 (1), 553.58 (1) and 227.11 (2), Stats., the Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Securities will hold a public hearing to consider a rule revising Chapters DFI-Sec 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 32, relating to minor revisions to securities law and franchise law administrative code sections.

To obtain a copy of the proposed rule or fiscal estimate at no charge, to submit written comments regarding the proposed rule, or for questions regarding the agency's internal processing of the proposed rule, contact Mark Schlei, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, P.O. Box 8861, Madison, WI 53708-8861, tel. (608) 267-1705, e-mail mark.schlei@ wisconsin.gov. A copy of the proposed rule may also be obtained and reviewed at the Department of Financial Institution's website, www.wdfi.org. Written comments must be received by the conclusion of the department's hearing regarding the proposed rule.

Section 551.615, Stats.

Sections 551.406 (5), 551.412 (5), 551.605 (1), 553.31 (1), 553.58 (1) and 227.11 (2), Stats.

None.

Pursuant to chs. 551 and 553, Stats., the division regulates securities and franchise investment.

The objective of the rule is to repeal and recreate s. DFI-Sec 1.02 (7), create s. DFI-Sec 1.02 (8), amend s. DFI-Sec 1.02 (14) (intro) and (c), amend ss. DFI-Sec 2.02 (5) (d) 1., (9) (c), and 2.028 (intro.), repeal s. DFI-Sec 4.01 (4) (g), create s. DFI-Sec 4.04 (7) (d), create ss. DFI-Sec 5.01 (2) (f) 3., 5.04 (5) (d), and 5.06 (25), repeal and recreate ss. DFI-Sec 5.01 (4) (a), 5.10, and 5.13 (2), amend s. DFI-Sec 5.04 (6) (b), repeal s. DFI-Sec 5.05 (8) (i), amend s. DFI-Sec 7.01 (3) (a), repeal s. DFI-Sec 8.03 (note), and amend s. DFI-Sec 32.07 (1), relating to minor revisions to securities law and franchise law administrative code sections.

The purpose of the rule is as follows:

Section 1: The branch office definition for broker-dealers has been harmonized with FINRA and other state regulators for many years. However, with the change in the Uniform Securities Act in 2009, the branch office definition in the rule was changed to refer to a slightly different statutory definition of “place of business." The statutory definition works for investment advisers but not broker-dealers, hence the change in this rule.

Section 2: This is a new definition to accompany the solicitor rules proposed for s. DFI-Sec 5.06 (25) based on language developed by the NASAA IA Regulatory Policy and Review Project Group.

Section 3: These changes clarify that the definition applies to investment advisers as well as investment adviser representatives and the nature of the solicitations made by third party solicitors.

Section 4. This amendment changes the terminology used in the current rule (which limits applicability of its coverage solely to limited partnerships) by substituting the term “entity" to thereby have the rule apply to any type of business organization.

Section 5: Incident to the Division's 2008 rules revision to coordinate with the adoption of the new Wisconsin Securities Law effective January 1, 2009, current rule DFI-Sec 2.02 (9) (c) inadvertently cross-referenced statute section 551.102 (11) rather than the proper corresponding statute in section 551.202 (13) [which specifically refers to “accredited investors," whereas section 551.102 (11) does not]. This amendment corrects that cross-referencing error.

Section 6: This amendment would limit use of this registration exemption to sales of equity securities by Wisconsin-based entities meeting the exemption's requirements. This exemption provision was originally created in 1986 for use by early-stage Wisconsin businesses to raise risk capital for its operations. As such, the exemption's original language was specifically limited to sales of common stock of the business (which don't obligate a business to redeem/payback the invested funds). Debt securities — which require payback to investors — could not be sold under the original language of this exemption. The original language of the exemption restricting its use to sales of common stock was changed in 1991 to read “securities," thus enabling the exemption to be used for sales of debt as well as equity securities Subsequently, some filings have been made by Wisconsin businesses for the purpose of selling their debt securities, including sales by a Wisconsin finance company of several million dollars of its Notes that currently are in default, and the company is in bankruptcy. To restore the exemption's use back to its original purpose of enabling Wisconsin businesses to raise risk capital — not capital from debt securities requiring repayment — the language of the preamble is changed to permit only sales of equity securities.

Section 7: In a FINRA rule change comment published as Notice 09-70, FINRA recommended the repeal of the S47 Japan Module of the General Securities Representative examination. However, FINRA indicated that the examination was never actually implemented and therefore is not an available examination anyone can take in lieu of the Series 7 exam.

Section 8: This new section clarifies that a notice of the opening of a branch office is not complete and therefore, not deemed “filed" until all fees, including any applicable late filing fees, are received. This parallels the fee payment component in the broker-dealer application rule in s. DFI-Sec 4.01 (2) (b) and the agent rule in s. DFI-Sec 4.01 (2) (c).

Section 9: Section DFI-Sec 4.01 (6) currently provides the same review authority as s. DFI-Sec 5.01 (2) (f) except for the ability to perform a pre-registration examination of the adviser's records. This provision was inadvertently left out of the investment adviser rules.

Section 10: This amendment clarifies that the Series 65 and 66 exams referred to are the post-1999 version as specified in subd. 2. It also adds clarification that if the applicant was registered as an agent of a broker-dealer within two years of the application and the approval of that registration was based on passage of the Series 7 and 66 exams, those exams would still be considered active for purposes of meeting the exam requirement in subd. 3.

Section 11: This new section clarifies that a notice of the opening of a branch office is not complete and therefore, not deemed “filed" until all fees, including any applicable late filing fees, are received. This parallels the fee payment component in the investment adviser application rule in s. DFI-Sec 5.01 (2) (a) and the investment adviser representative rule in s. DFI-Sec 5.01 (2) (b).