CR_12-039 Hearing to consider an order to amend sections A-E 8.07 (1) and (2), 9.05 (1) (a), and 9.06 (3), and to create section A-E 9.03 (1) (b), relating to Landscape Architect licensure and practice.

State meat and poultry inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with USDA FSIS. Under this agreement, states must provide inspection services "at least equal to" federal meat inspection. Each program conducts a self-assessment annually and USDA FSIS conducts an on-site audit every three years to determine whether the program meets federal "at least equal to" requirements. Wisconsin's program currently meets these "at least equal to" standards and has met them since the program's inception.

State-inspected meat and poultry establishments may currently sell their products only within the state where the plant is located. However, in May, 2011, USDA finalized rules that allow some selected state-inspected meat and poultry establishments to sell their meat and poultry products in other states. To qualify for this program, known as the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program, states must provide inspection that is the "same as" (identical to) federal inspection. USDA will fund 60 percent of the state's costs for inspecting meat and poultry plants selected to participate in the CIS program.

This proposed rule will revise ch. ATCP 55 , Meat and Meat Food Products, to incorporate by reference federal regulations creating the CIS program and specify practices that ensure the state program operates the "same as" the federal program for plants selected for the CIS program. DATCP also has adopted an emergency rule to revise Ch. ATCP 55 and allow Wisconsin to participate in the CIS program immediately.

Federal and surrounding state programs

Federal Programs

The Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act gave USDA FSIS the responsibility for ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry distributed in commerce for use as human food. FSIS inspects more than 6,200 establishments, conducting ante and post mortem slaughter inspection, inspection of meat and poultry food products and inspection of basic sanitation practices. FSIS also ensures that meat and poultry businesses follow labeling requirements and humane handling procedures during slaughter, as required by federal law. The agency also reviews Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is a system employed by each establishment for preventing contamination and ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products.

Wisconsin's state meat and poultry inspection program operates under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 created state meat inspection programs under the authority of FSIS. FSIS ensures that state programs meet inspection standards that are "at least equal to" federal meat inspection standards. FSIS provides 50 percent of Wisconsin's program funding.

Until 2008, only meat and poultry establishments inspected by FSIS were allowed to sell products in interstate commerce. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized FSIS to create the CIS program, allowing selected state-inspected meat and poultry establishments to sell their products in interstate commerce. FSIS published final rules for the voluntary program in May 2011 and will provide oversight for the program to ensure that state meat inspection programs deliver inspection services that are the "same as" federal meat inspection. FSIS will provide states with 60 percent of the cost for inspecting those plants that participate in the program.

Surrounding State Programs

Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and is not eligible to participate in the CIS program. Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois do operate state meat inspection programs, but these states do not plan to participate in the CIS program at this time. Illinois' state meat inspection program includes USDA's Federal-State Cooperative program (formerly known as the "Talmadge-Aiken" program). Under this program, state inspectors conduct federal inspections, and the inspected plants are thereby allowed to sell their products in interstate commerce. Unlike the CIS program where meat establishments will continue to be operated under the state meat inspection program, meat establishments in the Federal-State Cooperative program are considered to be federally-inspected.

Data and analytical methodologies

The Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection surveyed Wisconsin state-inspected meat and poultry establishments that previously expressed interest in participating in the CIS program, to gauge their level of interest and the range of products the plants hope to produce in the CIS program. The Bureau reviewed information about state meat inspection programs and contacted surrounding states to determine the extent to which each state plans to participate in the CIS program.

Fiscal Impact

This rule is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on state operations and will have no fiscal impact on local governments. The Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection expects that it will incur minimal costs to implement the CIS program since the Bureau already inspects meat and poultry establishments selected into the program using procedures deemed "at least equal to" the federal standards. In its analysis of the final federal rule, USDA noted that states may incur some costs associated with processing and evaluating applications submitted by establishments requesting selection into the CIS program. Wisconsin may make some changes in procedures to meet "same as" federal inspection requirements, but the costs associated with these changes are minimal.

Business Impact

This rule will have a positive impact on very small state-inspected meat and poultry establishments that choose to participate and are selected for the program. The department estimates 17 plants will participate in the program in the first year of its operation. Participation in the CIS program will allow these state-inspected meat and poultry plants to expand their markets from selling only in Wisconsin to all fifty states. USDA expects establishments to incur a one-time start-up cost associated with filing an application, training employees, meeting regulatory performance standards, obtaining label approval, and implementing a food safety program and some state-inspected establishments may need to make structural modifications to their facilities to comply with all federal requirements. The department anticipates costs associated with these activities to be minimal and will be offset by increased sales in a larger market area.

Wisconsin will not be able to provide flexibility to small businesses in complying with federal regulations. By complying with state regulations under a program deemed to be "at least equal to" the federal program, these businesses are essentially meeting most of the federal regulations the state program will adopt in administering a program deemed to be the "same as" the federal program. Small and very small meat and poultry plants (as defined by USDA) in Wisconsin that choose to operate under federal inspection are already complying with the federal regulations. In addition, the CIS program is voluntary and no state-inspected meat or poultry business will be required to participate.

DATCP Contact

Questions and comments related to this rule may be directed to:

Cindy Klug, Director

Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: [phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
ATCP 55, Meat and Meat Products
3. Subject
Revision of ATCP 55, Meat and Meat Products, to meet federal requirements allowing the interstate sales of state-inspected meat and poultry products
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   X FED   PRO   PRS   SEG   SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes     X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Wisconsin operates the nation's largest state meat and poultry inspection program, with more than 270 official licensed establishments. Twenty-seven states currently operate state meat and poultry inspection programs. All state-inspected Wisconsin meat and poultry establishments are very small (as defined by USDA) and fill an important niche in the state's economy. According to USDA, state meat and poultry inspection programs provide unique services to these small plants by "providing more personalized guidance to establishments in developing their food safety oriented operations." USDA provides half of the funding for state meat and poultry inspection programs.
State meat and poultry inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with USDA FSIS. Although state meat inspection procedures may vary from federal inspection, states must provide inspection services "at least equal to" federal meat inspection. Each program conducts a self-assessment annually and USDA FSIS conducts an on-site audit every three years to determine whether the program meets federal "at least equal to" requirements. Wisconsin's program currently meets these "at least equal to" standards and has met them since the program's inception. Currently state-inspected meat and poultry establishments may only sell their products within the state where the plant is located. However, in May, 2011, USDA finalized rules that will allow some selected state-inspected meat and poultry establishments to sell their meat and poultry products in other states. To qualify for this program, known as the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program, states must provide inspection that is the "same as" (identical to) federal inspection. USDA will fund 60 percent of the state's costs for inspecting meat and poultry plants selected to participate in the CIS program. This proposed rule will revise ch. ATCP 55, Meat and Meat Food Products, to incorporate by reference federal regulations creating the CIS program and specifying practices that ensure the state program operates the "same as" the federal program in plants selected for the CIS program. DATCP plans to adopt an emergency rule to revise ch. ATCP 55 and allow Wisconsin to participate in the CIS program immediately.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
This rule primarily impacts those very small state-inspected establishments that choose to participate and meet the requirements of the voluntary CIS program. This rule will have a minimal impact on very small state-inspected establishments that choose not to participate in the CIS program, by updating section headings and adopting appropriate sections of federal regulations that are followed in operating the existing state inspection program. All state-inspected meat establishments in Wisconsin, along with members of the Wisconsin Association of Meat Processors (WAMP), were contacted and asked to comment on the economic impact of the rule.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None. Local governmental units are not impacted by this rule.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
Businesses and Business Sectors This rule will have a positive impact on very small (as defined by USDA) state-inspected meat and poultry establishments in Wisconsin that choose to participate and are selected for the program. The department estimates that 17 plants will participate in the program in the first year of its operation and that the number of plants participating in the program may grow in the future. Participation in the CIS program will allow these state-inspected meat and poultry plants to expand their markets from selling only in Wisconsin to all fifty states. USDA expects establishments to incur one-time start-up costs associated with filing an application, training employees, meeting regulatory performance standards, obtaining label approval and implementing a food safety program that complies with all federal requirements. USDA also expects some state-inspected establishments may need to make structural modifications to their facilities to meet federal requirements. Since state-inspected meat and poultry establishments are already meeting requirements that are "at least equal to" federal requirements, the department anticipates these costs will be minimal and will be offset by increased sales in a larger market area. There will be no additional licensing fees to participate in the CIS program beyond the cost of a license currently required to operate a meat or poultry business. Changes to the rule designed to ensure the program meets "same as" requirements will not impact the way state-inspected meat establishments not participating in the program are inspected. State's Economy The rule will benefit the state's economy by allowing very small state-inspected meat and poultry establishments to increase sales. These increased sales will benefit the local economy of state-inspected meat and poultry establishments, many of which are located in Wisconsin's rural communities. The rule will also benefit farmers by providing access to new markets for their meat and poultry products, while allowing the farmers to transport their animals to local slaughter and processing establishments. Local Governmental Units and Public Utility Rate Payers The rule will have no impact on local governmental units or public utility rate payers.
Economic Impact Analysis Comments DATCP posted the proposed rule online as required under Wis. Stat. s. 227.137 and solicited comments from all state-inspected meat establishments and the Wisconsin Association of Meat Processors (WAMP). The department received three comments, all supportive of the rule changes needed to ensure participation in the CIS program. Two comments described the positive impact the CIS program would have on their businesses. One business noted that they have had to turn down orders from stores and restaurants from across the U.S. almost weekly because they cannot currently sell their products in interstate commerce. They state that, "going forward with the regulation changes will allow my company alone to create several full time position, several part time positions, and put tens of thousands of dollars into the state's small-scale farming economy every month, and a sizable amount of investment into our facility, which is in an economically disadvantaged area in the city of Milwaukee." Another business owner described how this this will have a very positive impact on her business, allowing her to deliver her product throughout the midwest. A third business owner described how he had considered pursuing federal inspection for his product, but felt that state inspection personnel have been more helpful and preferred to pursue participation in the CIS program. Fiscal Impact This rule is not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on state operations and will have no impact on local governments. The Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection expects that it will incur minimal costs to implement the CIS program since the Bureau already inspects meat and poultry establishments selected into the program using procedures deemed "at least equal to" the federal standards. In analyzing the final federal rule, USDA noted that states may incur some costs associated with processing and evaluating applications submitted by establishments requesting selection into the CIS program. Wisconsin may make some changes in procedures to meet "same as" federal inspection requirements, but the costs associated with these changes are minimal. The state program gained additional inspector positions in the current biennium to deal with the "same as" requirement. Program and workload analysis will continue to be provided to assess future needs.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Implementing this rule will be beneficial to Wisconsin's small state-inspected meat and poultry businesses. These rule changes are required for Wisconsin to participate in USDA's CIS program, which will allow certain selected state-inspected meat and poultry plants to sell their products in interstate commerce. Since state-inspected meat plants are already meeting requirements that are "at least equal to" federal requirements, these rule changes will not impose any new regulatory burden on state-inspected meat establishments in Wisconsin. Alternative to Implementing the Rule If these rules are not adopted, USDA may determine that Wisconsin cannot participate in the CIS program, thereby preventing Wisconsin's state-inspected meat and poultry plants from selling their products in interstate commerce.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range fiscal implications of implementing the rule. In the long run, the rule changes will benefit very small state-inspected meat and poultry businesses in Wisconsin by allowing them to expand their market into other states.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act gave USDA FSIS the responsibility for ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry distributed in commerce for use as human food. FSIS inspects more than 6,200 establishments, conducting ante and post mortem slaughter inspection, inspection of meat and poultry food products and inspection of basic sanitation practices. FSIS also ensures that meat and poultry businesses follow labeling and humane handling procedures during slaughter, as required by federal law. The agency also reviews Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is a preventive system employed by each establishment for preventing contamination and ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products. Wisconsin's state meat and poultry inspection program operates under a cooperative agreement with FSIS. The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 created state meat inspection programs under the authority of FSIS. FSIS ensures that state programs meet inspection standards that are "at least equal to" federal meat inspection standards. FSIS provides 50 percent of Wisconsin's program funding.
Until 2008, only meat and poultry establishments inspected by FSIS were allowed to sell products in interstate commerce. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized FSIS to create the CIS program, allowing selected state-inspected meat and poultry establishments to sell their products in interstate commerce. FSIS published final rules for the voluntary program in May 2011 and will provide oversight for the program to ensure that state meat inspection programs deliver inspection services to CIS participants that are the "same as" (identical to) federal meat inspection. FSIS will provide states with 60 percent of the cost for inspecting those plants that participate in the program.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Any state that operates a state meat inspection program must meet federal requirements to provide services that are "at least equal to" federal inspection, including an expectation that states have regulations in place that are "at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. Participation in the CIS program requires that states have a regulatory foundation that is the "same as", rather than "at least equal to", federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. The following describes state meat inspection regulations in neighboring states: Illinois - Illinois statutes mandate the adoption by reference of federal regulations; some provisions from federal regulations (Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures, Biotype I E. coli testing) are reproduced in whole and without citation in the statute. In the Illinois rules, federal regulations are adopted by reference, with an additional limitation of scope and definitions to intrastate commerce in Illinois. Iowa - Iowa has adopted applicable sections of the federal meat and poultry inspection regulations by reference into their administration rules, but, is statutorily limited to applying them within the scope of intra-state commerce. Iowa statute states that goal of the regulations is to ensure that the Iowa program requirements are at least equal to those of the federal program. Iowa regulations contain several definitions which are altered from the federal regulations so that they only apply within the state of Iowa. Michigan - Michigan does not operate a state meat inspection program and is not qualified to participate in the CIS program. Minnesota - Minnesota statutes require rules development such that its program requirements are "at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection program requirements. Minnesota rules do not adopt federal requirements by reference.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Cindy Klug, Director Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection P.O. Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708-8911				[phone]

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

These rule changes adopt federal regulations that establish the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program and formally adopts current practice into rule to provide the regulatory foundation required under federal law to allow certain small state meat inspected businesses to participate in the CIS program and sell their products in interstate commerce. The rule will have a positive economic impact on small meat establishments that meet requirements and choose to participate in the CIS program. This rule will not have a fiscal impact on other state-inspected meat establishments because they already meet requirements that are "at least equal to" federal regulations and these rule changes will not impact inspection practices for these plants.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

The department reviewed data USDA collected and analyzed as part of their rulemaking process regarding the potential impact of the federal rule authorizing the CIS program on small businesses. In addition, the department sent a questionnaire to state inspected meat establishments in Wisconsin that expressed interest in the CIS program to provide these businesses with information about program requirements and determine the extent to which these businesses were still interested in applying for the program.

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements

X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting

X Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements

X Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards

X Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements

X Other, describe:

All of the above steps have been considered, but cannot be taken, as the rule incorporates federal regulatory requirements that must be met to participate in the CIS program. However, this program is completely voluntary on the part of the small business and so no undue economic impact will be imposed on those plants that choose to participate. Inspection practices will not change for those establishments that do not choose to participate in the program.

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

Small businesses that participate in this program must meet federal requirements and Wisconsin cannot modify those requirements. However, the CIS program is voluntary and meat establishments will be able to make their own assessment as to whether it is profitable for their business to participate.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

This rule does not change enforcement provisions for state-inspected meat establishments. They will be the same as what already exists for the small meat businesses currently holding our license.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers, and Land Surveyors Examining Board

CR 12-039

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors (Jt. Board) by sections 227.11 (2) (a) and 443.015 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting sections 443.01 (3r), 443.02 (2) and (3), 443.035, 443.09 (4m) and (5), 443.10 (2) (c), Wis. Stats., the Landscape Architecture Section of the Joint Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend sections A-E 8.07 (1) and (2) , 9.05 (1) (a) , and 9.06 (3) , and to create section A-E 9.03 (1) (b) , relating to Landscape Architect licensure and practice.

Hearing Information

Date:   Thursday, October 18, 2012

Time:   9:30 a.m.

Location:   Room 121
  1400 East Washington Avenue
  Madison, WI 53703

Appearances at the Hearing

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.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Comments may be submitted to Kris Anderson, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 117, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail] . Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. , to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of the Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Kris Anderson, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Rm. 117, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at:
[e-mail] .

Analysis Prepared by the Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers, and Land Surveyors Examining Board

Statutes interpreted

Sections 443.01 (3r) , 443.02 (2) and (3) , 443.035 , 443.09 (4m) and (5) , 443.10 (2) (c) , Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 227.11 (2 (a), 443.015 (2), Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

Section 227.11 (2) (a) , Stats., authorizes state agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the statutes they enforce or administer, when deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose of those statutes. Section 443.015 (2) , Stats., authorizes the Landscape Architect Section of the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors (Joint Board) to promulgate rules governing the practice of landscape architecture.

Related statute or rule

No statutes or administrative rules beyond those referenced above are related to this proposed rule-making.

Plain language analysis

The rule amendments in this proposal are based primarily on statutory changes made in 2009 Wisconsin Act 123 , but include changes effected by 2009 Wisconsin Act 350 and 2011 Wisconsin Act 146 as well. The proposal also makes a clarification in and removes obsolete date references from the rules regarding the registration requirements for landscape architects.

Before the effective date of Act 123, no Wisconsin statute prohibited a person not licensed as a landscape architect from offering to, or engaging in, the practice of landscape architecture. Former s. 443.02 (5) , Stats., only prohibited a person not so licensed or registered from using the title "landscape architect" or any other such reference in representing his or her professional capacity. Act 123, which took effect February 26, 2010, repealed s. 443.02 (5), Stats., and amended subs. (2) and (3) of the same statute to include, respectively, a prohibition against the practice of, or offer to, practice landscape architecture without a license or registration in that profession. The proposed updates to A-E 8.07, addressing unauthorized professional practice, are based on these statutory amendments.

2009 Wisconsin Act 350 became effective on May 28, 2010. Act 350 repealed s. 443.09 (6), Stats., which had allowed applicants for registration as an architect, landscape architect, or professional engineer who failed the relevant examination to request review thereof within one year of the date it was taken. Act 350 thus requires the repeal of A-E rules provisions related to examination review for all such applicants, including those provisions regarding registration as a landscape architect found in A-E 9.05 (6).

2011 Wisconsin Act 146 , effective May 4, 2012, transferred full authority for the content of the landscape architect licensure examination from the Joint Board to the Landscape Architect Section in s. 443.09 (4m) , Stats. The transfer of statutory authority prompts the proposed substitution of "landscape architecture section" for "examining board" in A-E 9.05 (1) (a). The same statutory change obviated the need for a separate examination on barrier design, militating the repeal of A-E 9.05 (1) (b).

Aside from updates based on statutory changes, the Section seeks to clarify A-E 9.03 (1), regarding the types of work that will satisfy the landscape architect experience requirements set forth in s. 443.035 (1) , Stats. The proposed renumbering of A-E 9.03 (1) to 9.03 (1) (a) and the creation of A-E 9.03 (1) (b) makes clear that for landscape architect licensure applicants who follow the registration path described in s. 443.035 (1) (a) , Stats., work experience acquired before completion of the educational programs specified therein will not count toward the licensure experience requirement. Lastly, this proposal removes the references to December 31, 1995 in A-E 9.05 (1) (a) and (b), as they are no longer necessary.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois:

The Illinois Landscape Architecture Act of 1989, incorporated into the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) at 225 IlCS 315, prohibits any person from representing him or herself as a landscape architect, or from using "landscape architect" or "landscape architecture" in a title associated with his or her name unless licensed by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (DFPR). 225 ILCS 315/4. However, any person may engage in the practice of landscape architecture so long as he or she complies with the title prohibition. 225 ILCS 315/5.

DFPR is required to consult the Illinois Landscape Architect Registration Board when promulgating rules regarding the licensure and practice of landscape architects. 225 ILCS 315/8 (c). Although the DFPR may seek the expert knowledge of the Board on any matter related to the administration of the 1989 Act, it retains final authority over all such matters, which includes content of examination for initial licensure. 225 ILCS 315/8 (b) and (d), 315/11 (a). The statutes do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1342&ChapterID=24

DFPR's administrative rules provide that applicants for licensure as a landscape architect must pass the Landscape Architect Registration Examination of the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). 68 Ill. Reg. 1275.50 (a). The Illinois rules also do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/06801275sections.html

Iowa:

The Iowa statutes, referred to as the Iowa Code, prohibit any person from engaging in the practice of landscape architecture, or using a title containing those words or any variation thereof to represent him or herself, without a license issued by the Iowa Landscape Architectural Examining Board. XIII Iowa Code 544B.2. The Board, which is part of the Iowa Department of Commerce, has rule-making authority for all matters related to landscape architect licensure, including examination content and administration. XIII Iowa Code 544B.5., B.8. An applicant who fails the required examination may submit a written request for information concerning his or her grade or questions answered incorrectly, unless a uniform, standardized examination is used. In that event, the Board is only required to provide the examination grade and such other information as is made available to the Board. XIII Iowa Code 544B.8.

http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ic?f=templates&fn=default.htm

The rules of the Iowa Landscape Architectural Examining Board provide that, within 30 days of notification of a failing grade, the landscape architect examinant may submit a written request to the Board to review his or her own graded examination. 193D—2.5(3)a., Iowa Admin. Code.

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/08-08-2012.193D.pdf

Michigan:

Under Michigan's statutes, known as the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL), no person may engage in the practice of landscape architecture unless duly licensed in that profession. See MCL ss. 339.2201 (a) and (b), and 339.2202 (3) . Additionally, no person may use the title "landscape architect" or use the phrase "landscape architecture" in representing him or herself unless that person is so licensed. MCL s. 339.2211 .

The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has authority for the examination content and licensure of landscape architects. MCL s. 339.2204 . The Michigan statutes do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-299-1980-22

LARA requires an applicant for landscape architect licensure to pass either the uniform national examination of CLARB or a state licensing examination deemed by LARA to be equivalent thereto. R 339.19025 (1), Mich. Admin. Code. - See PDF for diagram The Michigan rules also do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination.

http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/AdminCode/105_23_AdminCode.pdf

Minnesota:

In Minnesota, no person may practice, offer to practice, or use a title representing the professional capacity to practice, landscape architecture unless licensed by the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design. Sections 326.02 (1) , (4a) , 326.06 , Minn. Stats. The Board has rule-making authority for all aspects of the regulation of its associated professions, including licensure examination content. Section 326.06 , Minn. Stats. The Minnesota statutes do not address examination review or re-examination for applicants who fail the required examination.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=326

By administrative rule, the Minnesota Board requires applicants for licensure as a landscape architect to pass the Landscape Architect Registration Examination administered by CLARB. Sections 1800.0800 E.; 1800.1500, Subp. 1.; 1800.1700, Subp. 1.; Minn. Admin. Code. While the Minnesota rules allow an applicant who fails the required licensing examination to retake it for another fee, s. 1800.0900, Subp. 4., they do not address review of failed examinations.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1800

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

No factual data was required for the rule-making in this proposal, as the changes were necessitated by statute. For that reason, no analysis was involved in the preparation of these proposed rules.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation o economic impact analysis

Pursuant to s. IV, 3. a., of EO # 50, the changes proposed herein were posted on both the state's and the department's administrative rules websites for 14 days to solicit comments regarding their potential economic impact on businesses, business sectors, professional associations, local government units, or potentially interested parties. In addition, e-mail solicitations were sent to several potentially interested parties. No responses to any of the solicitations were received.

The Landscape Architect Section of the Joint Board concludes that the proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses. This proposal tracks statutory changes made in 2009 Wisconsin Acts 123 and 350 , which became effective on February 26, 2010 and May 28, 2010, respectively, both over two years ago. Both Acts have been in place long enough to produce the resulting economic or fiscal impact experienced by private businesses or public entities, if any, and for such impact to have been fully absorbed by those entities as a part of routine operations. The transfer of authority for licensure examination content from the Joint Board to the Landscape Architect Section effected by 2011 Wis. Act 146 will have no economic impact on any individual or entity. The final two amendments of this proposal are matters of clarifying an existing rule and removing obsolete date references, neither of which carry an economic impact.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.

Effect on Small Business

Because the statutory changes that prompted this proposal took effect over two years ago, these proposed rules will not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) , Stats., beyond that which such businesses have already experienced and absorbed. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail] , or by calling [phone].

Agency Contact Person

Kris Anderson, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 117, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail] .

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. A-E 8.07 is amended to read:

A-E 8.07 Unauthorized practice. An architect, landscape architect , professional engineer, designer , or land surveyor:

(1) Shall assist in enforcing laws which prohibit the unlicensed practice of architecture, landscape architecture , professional engineering, designing , and land surveying by reporting violations to the board.

(2) May not delegate professional responsibility to unlicensed persons and may not otherwise aid or abet the unlicensed practice of architecture, landscape architecture , professional engineering, designing , or land surveying.

SECTION 2. A-E 9.03 (1) is renumbered to A-E 9.03 (1) (a).

SECTION 3. A-E 9.03 (1) (b) is created to read:

A-E 9.03 (1) (b) To qualify as satisfactory experience in landscape architecture for the purposes of s. 443.035 (1) (a) , Stats., an applicant's experience must be obtained subsequent to completion of the education requirements.

SECTION 4. A-E 9.05 (1) (a) is amended to read:

A-E 9.05 Examinations. (1) Scope of written examinations. (a) After December 31, 1995, a An applicant for initial registration as a landscape architect shall pass an examination determined by the examining board landscape architecture section to assess knowledges required for the professional practice of landscape architecture.

SECTION 5. A-E 9.05 (1) (b) is repealed

SECTION 6. A-E 9.05 (6) is repealed.

SECTION 7. A-E 9.06 (3) is amended to read:

A-E 9.06 (3) References from at least 5 individuals, 3 of whom have personal knowledge of the applicant's experience in landscape architecture and are engaged in the practice of landscape architecture. If 3 references from individuals who are engaged in the practice of landscape architecture are not available, the section may accept references from individuals actively engaged in the practice of an allied profession. After December 31, 1995, o O ne of the 3 references having personal knowledge of the applicant's experience in landscape architecture shall be licensed or registered as a landscape architect by the licensing authority of some licensing jurisdiction in the United States or Canada.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
A-E 8, 9
3. Subject
Landscape Architect Licensure and Practice
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR   FED   X PRO   PRS   SEG   SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes     X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
All but two of the proposed rule amendments are based on statutory changes already in effect. Of the two exceptions, one clarifies an existing rule, and one removes obsolete date references, neither of which will make any substantive changes. Two of the statutory amendments from which this proposal arises have been in effect for more than two years, and thus, the proposed rule amendments prompted thereby involved no policy changes or discussions. Neither the Legislative Council's original Act Memo for 2011 Wis. Act 146, nor the one created following the adoption of Senate Amendment 1, provide any information bearing on the impetus for granting full credentialing authority, including determining the content of the profession's licensure examination, to the Landscape Architecture Section of the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors (Joint Board). However, that authority grant would seem to reflect an acknowledgement that the Section, whose members are specifically devoted to the landscape architecture profession, are best equipped to perform that function, as opposed to the Joint Board as a whole.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
The rule amendments that are based on 2009 Wis. Acts 123 and 350, both of which have been in effect for more than two years, will have no current impact on any interested parties. 2011 Wis. Act 146's grant of full credentialing authority for landscape architects to the Landscape Architecture Section, which became effective on May 4, 2012, will have affected only those entities immediately involved, i.e., the Section and its licensees, the Joint Board, and DSPS credentialing and legal services staff.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
None.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Promulgating the proposed amendments to the landscape architecture rules will implement the statutory changes made by 2009 Wis. Acts 123 and 350, and by 2011 Wis. Act 146, thus bringing the rules into conformance with the statutes. Because they are mandated by statute, there are no alternatives to promulgating these rules.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The only potential long-range implication of this proposal is that current and future landscape architects will be better prepared to practice their profession, as their credentialing is now performed by the Landscape Architecture Section, whose members are specifically devoted to the landscape architecture profession, as opposed to the entire Joint Board, which governs several other professions as well.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The federal government does not regulate professionals such as landscape architects.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Illinois: The Illinois Landscape Architecture Act of 1989, incorporated into the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) at 225 IlCS 315, prohibits any person from representing him or herself as a landscape architect ,or from using "landscape architect" or "landscape architecture" in a title associated with his or her name unless licensed by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (DFPR). 225 ILCS 315/4. However, any person may engage in the practice of landscape architecture so long as he or she complies with the title prohibition. 225 ILCS 315/5. DFPR is required to consult the Illinois Landscape Architect Registration Board when promulgating rules regarding the licensure and practice of landscape architects. 225 ILCS 315/8 (c). Although the DFPR may seek the expert knowledge of the Board on any matter related to the administration of the 1989 Act, it retains final authority over all such matters, which includes content of examination for initial licensure. 225 ILCS 315/8 (b) and (d), 315/11 (a). The statutes do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1342&ChapterID=24 DFPR's administrative rules provide that applicants for licensure as a landscape architect must pass the Landscape Architect Registration Examination of the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB). 68 Ill. Reg. 1275.50 (a). The Illinois rules also do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/06801275sections.html Iowa: The Iowa statutes, referred to as the Iowa Code, prohibit any person from engaging in the practice of landscape architecture, or using a title containing those words or any variation thereof to represent him or herself, without a license issued by the Iowa Landscape Architectural Examining Board. XIII Iowa Code 544B.2. The Board, which is part of the Iowa Department of Commerce, has rule-making authority for all matters related to landscape architect licensure, including examination content and administration. XIII Iowa Code 544B.5., B.8. An applicant who fails the required examination may submit a written request for information concerning his or her grade or questions answered incorrectly, unless a uniform, standardized examination is used. In that event, the Board is only required to provide the examination grade and such other information as is made available to the Board. XIII Iowa Code 544B.8. http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ic?f=templates&fn=default.htm The rules of the Iowa Landscape Architectural Examining Board provide that, within 30 days of notification of a failing grade, the landscape architect examinant may submit a written request to the Board to review his or her own graded examination. 193D—2.5(3)a., Iowa Admin. Code. http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/08-08-2012.193D.pdf Michigan: Under Michigan's statutes, known as the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL), no person may engage in the practice of landscape architecture unless duly licensed in that profession. See MCL ss. 339.2201 (a) and (b), and 339.2202 (3). Additionally, no person may use the title "landscape architect" or use the phrase "landscape architecture" in representing him or herself unless that person is so licensed. MCL s. 339.2211. The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has authority for the examination content and licensure of landscape architects. MCL s. 339.2204. The Michigan statutes do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-299-1980-22 LARA requires an applicant for landscape architect licensure to pass either the uniform national examination of CLARB or a state licensing examination deemed by LARA to be equivalent thereto. R 339.19025 (1), Mich. Admin. Code. The Michigan rules also do not address examination review for applicants who fail the required examination. http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/AdminCode/105_23_AdminCode.pdf
Minnesota: In Minnesota, no person may practice, offer to practice, or use a title representing the professional capacity to practice, landscape architecture unless licensed by the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience, and Interior Design. Sections 326.02 (1), (4a), 326.06, Minn. Stats. The Board has rule-making authority for all aspects of the regulation of its associated professions, including licensure examination content. Section 326.06, Minn. Stats. The Minnesota statutes do not address examination review or re-examination for applicants who fail the required examination. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=326 By administrative rule, the Minnesota Board requires applicants for licensure as a landscape architect to pass the Landscape Architect Registration Examination administered by CLARB. Sections 1800.0800 E.; 1800.1500, Subp. 1.; 1800.1700, Subp. 1.; Minn. Admin. Code. While the Minnesota rules allow an applicant who fails the required licensing examination to retake it for another fee, s. 1800.0900, Subp. 4., they do not address review of failed examinations. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1800
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Kristine E. Anderson, DBS Paralegal				[phone]

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

Notice of Hearing

Transportation

CR 12-041

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 86.195 and 86.195(2)(a) Stats., interpreting sections 86.195 and 86.196 Stats., the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposes an order to consider the amendment of Chapter Trans 200 , Wisconsin Administrative Code, relating to the erection of signs on public highways.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, October 22, 2012

Time:   9:00 a.m.

Location:   Hill Farms State Transportation Building
  Room 515 - The Eau Claire Room
  4802 Sheboygan Avenue
  Madison, WI 53705

Accessibility

This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call John Noll at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in alternative format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability to accommodate your needs.

Copies of the Rule

A copy of the rule may be obtained upon request from John Noll, SIS/TODS Program Coordinator, Bureau of Traffic Operations, Traffic Engineering Section, Traffic Design Unit, Room 501, P. O. Box 7986, Madison, WI 53707-7986. You may also contact Mr. Noll by phone at [phone], or via e-mail: [e-mail] . Copies will also be available at the hearing.

Submitting Comments on the Rule

The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open for 14 days from the date of this order to permit the submission of comments. Any such comments should be submitted to John Noll, SIS/TODS Program Coordinator, Bureau of Traffic Operations, Traffic Engineering Section, Traffic Design Unit, Room 501, P. O. Box 7986, Madison, WI 53707-7986, or by calling [phone]. You may also contact Mr. Noll via e-mail at: [e-mail] .

To view the proposed amendment to the rule, view the current rule, and submit written comments via e-mail/internet, you may visit the following website: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/law/rulenotices.htm .

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Transportation

Statutes interpreted

Section 86.195 , Stats.

Statutory authority

Section 86.195 , Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

The Department of Transportation may authorize the erection and maintenance of a specific information sign upon the request of any person within the right-of-way of a federal-aid primary highway or within the right-of-way of a federal-aid secondary highway under the jurisdiction of the department in accordance with s. 86.195 , Stats.

Related statute or rule

Sections 86.195 and Trans 200.06

Plain language analysis

This proposed rule-making would re-word Trans 200.06 (7) (b) 3. a., relating to the number of business logo panels allowed on specific information signs at interchanges when fewer than 6 qualified facilities are available in one or more of the categories of GAS, FOOD, LODGING, CAMPING and ATTRACTIONS. Business logo panels for 2 categories of motorist services may be displayed on the same information sign with certain limitations. This proposed rule increases flexibility, allowing more businesses to participate while making optimal use of existing structures.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

By allowing more flexibility, more businesses could participate in the Specific Information Sign program. This rule change is consistent with the 2009 Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) adopted by WisDOT.

Comparison with rules in the following states

Michigan: The categories allowed in Michigan are Gas/Diesel, Food, Lodging Camping and 24-hour Pharmacy's. When displaying logo panels for multiple categories, Michigan complies with the 2009 MUTCD: When 2 types of services are displayed on one sign, the logo sign panels shall be limited to either 3 for each motorist service type (for a total of 6 sign panels), or 4 of 1 motorist service type and 2 of the other motorist service type (for a total of 6 sign panels).

Minnesota: Logo signs can be installed on Interstate highways and certain freeways in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul area. Other highways are ineligible. The signs are located at interchanges, not intersections.

GAS, FOOD, LODGING and CAMPING businesses may advertise on logo signs. These businesses provide essential motorist services, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). When displaying logo panels on Interstate highways and certain freeways, Minnesota's logo program complies with the 2009 MUTCD, which allows 4 of 1 motorist service type and 2 of the other motorist service type (for a total of 6 sign panels).

Illinois: The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) administers a Business Logo Signing Program along various Interstate highways and other freeways. This program involves mounting gas, food, lodging, camping business, and 24-hour pharmacy signs, referred to as logos, on large blue-background panels in advance of interchange exits and along exit ramps to alert motorists to available motorist services.

The program includes all sections of Interstate highways and other freeways except those passing through densely populated urbanized areas where logo signing would overload motorists with information that is not essential to their safe travel. It does not apply to highways under the jurisdiction of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority.

Logo panels may be displayed to allow 3 business categories with 2 business logo panels from each category (for a total of 6 sign panels) on a single business sign structure. When 2 business categories are displayed on a single sign structure, 3 logo panels from each of the 2 business categories may be displayed, or 4 logo panels from 1 business category and 2 logo panels from another business category (for a total of 6 sign panels).

TOURIST ATTRACTION signs may be combined with business logo signs (Gas, Food, Camping and 24-Hour Pharmacy) on the same structure, with no more than 6 business logo panels displayed on any one structure. Tourist Attraction panels will not be combined with existing business service signs displaying more than 3 business logo panels. When tourist attraction signs are combined with business logo signs, one space will remain available for each business logo service type displayed on the structure.

This combination is different from what is suggested in the 2009 MUTCD.

Iowa: Iowa DOT requirements for mainline specific service signs erected in advance of an interchange, in a single direction of travel, and limitations regarding the numbers and types of business signs attached to these motorist service signs are as follows: Each mainline specific service sign is limited to 6 business logo panels. This restriction applies regardless of whether the specific service sign displays a single type of motorist service or a combination of motorist service types.

In general, only one type of motorist service should be displayed on each mainline specific service sign. However, the department may combine motorist service types on one sign for a reason such as, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Each combination sign is limited to 6 business logo panels.

(2) No more than 3 motorist service types shall be represented on any combination sign.

(3) For a combination sign displaying 3 types of motorist services, the number of business logo panels for each motorist service type is limited to 2.

(4) For a combination sign that will accommodate at least 4 business logo panels, each type of motorist service displayed on the sign must have at least 2 positions designated for that service type. This complies with the 2009 MUTCD.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how the related findings support the regulatory approach chosen

The proposed rule change complies with the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. When 2 types of motorist services are displayed on one sign, the logo sign panels shall be limited to either 3 for each motorist service type (for a total of 6 sign panels), or 4 of one motorist service type and 2 for the other motorist service type (for a total of 6 sign panels).

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses

By allowing a split of categories, with up to 4 business logo panels for one motorist service type and 2 business logo panels of another motorist service type, more businesses could simultaneously take advantage of using motorist service business logo panels. Subsequently, this would reduce the number of businesses on the waiting list for motorist services business logo panels at those particular interchanges or intersections. If more businesses are able to take advantage of this program, the department anticipates this regulatory change will have a minor positive fiscal effect on small business.

Agency Contact Person and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open for 14 days from the date of this order to permit the submission of comments. Any such comments should be submitted to John Noll, SIS/TODS Program Coordinator, Bureau of Traffic Operations, Traffic Engineering Section, Traffic Design Unit, Room 501, P. O. Box 7986, Madison, WI 53707-7986, or by calling [phone]. You may also contact Mr. Noll via e-mail at: [e-mail] .

To view the proposed amendment to the rule, view the current rule, and submit written comments via e-mail/internet, you may visit the following website:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/law/rulenotices.htm .

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original     Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Trans 200 / Specific Information and Business Signs / 200.06 (7) (b) 3.
3. Subject
Administrative rule language change.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR   FED   PRO   PRS   X SEG   SEG-S			20.395 (3) (eq)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	X Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
X State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes     X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The current rule language allows two (2) categories of motorist services on the same sign, with a maximum of three (3) business panels for each motorist service category, not to exceed a total of six (6) business panels. The new rule language would allow a combination of two (2) categories of motorist services on the same sign, with a maximum of four (4) business panels from one motorist service category and two (2) business panels from a second motorist service category, not to exceed a total of six (6) business panels.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
Motorist services businesses, such as GAS, FOOD, LODGING, CAMPING and ATTRACTIONS that may participate in the Specific Information Signs (SIS) program may be affected by the proposed rule.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
WisDOT
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
The businesses that this rule language change will affect may increase the number of motorists that take advantage of the services they provide, resulting in a positive economic impact. Statewide economic and fiscal impacts are expected to be minimal, due to the small number of business entities that would likely be affected.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
At certain interchanges throughout the state, more businesses that fall under the categories of GAS, FOOD, LODGING, CAMPING and ATTRACTIONS could be listed on Specific Information Signs (SIS), thereby reducing the number of businesses on the "Waiting List" at those intersections.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
A long-range implication of changing the rule language is the generation of more revenue from the collection of additional permit fees payable to WisDOT
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 edition adopted by Wisconsin, allows the combination described in #9 above.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )

Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota comply with the 2009 MUTCD by allowing three (3) business logo panels for two (2) motorist service types (for a total of six (6) business logo panels), or four (4) of one motorist service type and two (2) of the other motorist service type (for a total of six panels), which conforms to the intended rule language change in Wisconsin. In Illinois, the approach is different when the "ATTRACTION" category is included on a sign with multiple categories. When the "ATTRACTION" category is included on a sign with multiple categories, one logo panel space must always be available to add another business logo panel from one of the other motorist service types, which include: GAS, FOOD, and LODGING, CAMPING or 24-HOUR PHARMACY. This approach differs from the rule language changes Wisconsin wishes to enact.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
John Noll				608-266-0318

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

The businesses that this rule language change will affect may increase the number of motorists that take advantage of the services they provide, resulting in a positive economic impact. Statewide economic and fiscal impacts are expected to be minimal, due to the small number of business entities that would likely be affected.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements

Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting

Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements

Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards

Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements

X Other, describe:

N/A

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

The impact will be positive on all businesses, so small businesses will be fully eligible to participate.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

There are no rule enforcement provisions aside from eligibility.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

Yes X No