Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Of the four adjacent states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but tribal harvest is guided by the same modeling approach as in Wisconsin.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. A ten-year State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement specifies annual allowable lake trout harvests, defines refuges and special fishing areas, and establishes other terms and arrangements for state and tribal commercial fishing. The allowable lake trout harvests are reviewed by a state-tribal biological committee using the latest available data and modeling results. Based on those results and recommendations from the biological committee, the Agreement is re-negotiated as needed to change the total annual harvest of lake trout by all fishers, and possibly to address other issues related to shared harvest of lake trout and other species by state and tribal fishers.
There has been a steady decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior since the early 2000s. This decline has been confirmed by independent surveys conducted by the department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Some level of decline was expected due to high harvest limits in the early 2000s, which were in response to several large year classes (numbers of fish spawned in the same year) predicted to enter the fishery. However, mortality of lake trout from sea lamprey over the last eight years has also been higher than Lake Superior target levels. This combination of increased harvest and lamprey mortality has caused lake trout abundance to decline. While relatively stable abundances of spawning lake trout suggest that this decline is still reversible, action needs to be taken to arrest the lean lake trout population's decline. The decline in lake trout population abundances and predicted further declines necessitate the emergency harvest reductions in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis
There would be no implementation costs for the department. State-licensed and tribal commercial fishers may be affected by the amount of fish they are able to harvest. It is not expected that fishers will have any compliance expenditures or reporting changes associated with the rule.
The decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior has been confirmed by surveys conducted by the department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Rule changes are necessary in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
Effects on Small Business
The proposed rule change would impact state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, fish wholesalers, and others whose interests or businesses are affected by commercial fishing. Minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.
The rule will be enforced by department conservation wardens under the authority of chapter 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.
Final regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rule is expected to have minimal economic impact on small businesses. The department determined this rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or the overall economic competitiveness of this state.
Rules Proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs
No information.
Environmental Impact
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.
Agency Contact Person
Peter Stevens
Department of Natural Resources
141 S. Third Street
Bayfield WI, 54814
Telephone: (715) 779-4035
Ext:
12
Email:
peter.stevens@wisconsin.gov
.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
Updated
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Sections of chs. NR 20 and 25 related to lake trout harvest limits in Lake Superior
|
3. Subject
|
The emergency rule will implement harvest limits for the 2012-13 lake trout commercial harvest season. It reduces the annual commercial fishing harvest limit for lake trout on Lake Superior, revises rules limiting gill-net fishing effort, and authorizes limitations on recreational fishing based on negotiations to develop the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
⍽
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
|
No Fiscal Effect
X
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
|
X
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 welfare of state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, recreational anglers, and associated businesses is threatened by a decline in the lake trout population in the Apostle Islands vicinity of Lake Superior. The emergency rule is necessary to implement harvest limits for the 2012-13 lake trout commercial harvest season.
|
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 purpose of the emergency rule is to amend Lake Superior lake trout harvest limits as required by revisions to the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement. The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. Lake trout harvest limits were negotiated in October 2012 among the Department of Natural Resources and the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa and those changes must be ordered through Administrative Code. The Department met with the Lake Superior Commercial Fishing Board in November 2012. The Board understood the biological need for making harvest quota changes, but it had concerns that cuts be made fairly and equitably across all fishers.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
N/A
|
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 rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2011 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, this rule will also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish since lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $160,000 in 2011. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $40,000 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000.
The proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The rule does not allow for the potential to establish a reduced fine for small businesses, nor does it establish "alternative enforcement mechanisms" for "minor violations" of administrative rules made by small businesses. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rule.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
A predicted continued decline in lake trout population abundances necessitates the current reductions in harvest numbers to support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term. Allowing harvest at current quota and effort limits - an alternative to implementing the rule - is not biologically sustainable and could create negative economic impacts for commercial fishers.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Reducing quota and effort limits for commercial fishers, authorizing harvest limits on recreational fishers, and monitoring lake trout populations will support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to states. None of the proposed changes violate or conflict with federal regulations.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Of the four states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but there is a tribal harvest guided by the same modeling approach as Wisconsin.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Peter Stevens
|
(715) 779-4035 Ext. 12
|
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 rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2011 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, this rule will also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish since lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $160,000 in 2011. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $40,000 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000.
The proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The rule does not allow for the potential to establish a reduced fine for small businesses, nor does it establish "alternative enforcement mechanisms" for "minor violations" of administrative rules made by small businesses. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rule.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
Dockside values of fish; commercial fishing harvest reports.
|
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
⍽
Other, describe:
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
The rule will be enforced by Department Conservation Wardens under the authority of chapter 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.
|
6. Did the Agency Prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—
Environmental Protection—General, Chs. 100—
Environmental Protection—Water
Regulation, Chs. 300—
Environmental Protection—Air Pollution
Control, Chs. 400—
Environmental Protection—Solid Waste
Management, Chs. 500—Environmental Protection—Hazardous Waste Management, Chs. 600—
Environmental Protection—Water Supply, Chs. 800—
(
DNR # OE-46-10)
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to revise chs.
NR 2
,
19
,
51
,
108
,
110
,
126
,
134
,
150
,
166
,
101
,
300
,
305
,
310
,
327
,
345
,
410
,
512
,
670
, and
820
, relating to the Department's environmental analysis and review procedures under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
1.11
and
227.11
, Wis. Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch.
NR 150
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the Department's environmental analysis and review procedures under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. The proposed rule revisions would make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s.
1.11
, Wis. Stats. The revised rule will emphasize the analysis of broad issues and policies, de-emphasize document production for individual project actions, and provide for meaningful public involvement.
The hearing will be held on:
Hearing Information
Date:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Location:
Eau Claire Room
LE Philips Memorial Library
400 Eau Claire Street
Eau Claire, WI
Date:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Location:
Green Bay DNR Service Center
2984 Shawano Avenue
Green Bay, WI
Date:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Location:
Room G09
State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2)
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI
The Department will hold an open house for one-half hour prior to each hearing. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rule.
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 Jeff Schimpff at (608) 267-7853 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Availability of Rules and Submitting Comments
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Jeff Schimpff, Bureau of Energy, Transportation, and Environmental Analysis (ETEA/7), P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until April 26, 2013. 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 Mr. Jeff Schimpff, Bureau of Energy, Transportation, and Environmental Analysis (ETEA/7), P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department has general authority to promulgate rules under s.
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., that interprets the specific statutory authority granted in s.
1.11
, Stats.
Related statutes or rules
WEPA compliance is a requirement for all state agencies and Department programs. As a result, many statutes and codes are WEPA and NR 150-related.
Statute chapters: Chapters
16
,
23
,
30
,
33
,
160
,
196
,
227
,
285
,
289
,
291
, and
293
, Stats.
Administrative Code chapters: Chapters
NR 1
,
2
,
19
,
44
,
48
,
52
,
60
,
103
,
107
,
108
,
110
,
126
,
128
,
131
,
132
,
133
,
134
,
162
,
166
,
182
,
191
,
200
,
243
,
299
,
300
,
305
,
310
,
327
,
345
,
347
,
406
,
410
,
489
,
512
,
670
,
820
, and
852
.
The department proposes several housekeeping changes to some of these other administrative codes that would have obsolete ch.
NR 150
references after the changes to ch.
NR 150
are codified.
Plain language analysis
WEPA and ch.
NR 150
are cornerstone laws for the agency that date back to the early 1970's. The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s.
1.11
, Wis. Stats. The new rule emphasizes the analysis of broad issues and policies, reduces process and paperwork requirements for individual project actions, and provides clear procedures for public involvement.
The new rule will require that the Department: 1) identify and analyze environmental issues important for their geographic, multidisciplinary, or policy scope; 2) analyze issues earlier, when alternative options have not been foreclosed; 3) provide that environmental analysis information be incorporated into departmental policy and decision-making; 4) define and provide meaningful public involvement; 5) address the information/policy-driven requirements of s.
1.11 (2) (e)
and
(h)
, Stats., as separate from the action/project-driven requirements of s.
1.11 (2) (c)
, Stats.; 6) identify and eliminate process requirements that have become duplicative over time as a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice; and 7) replace the current Ch.
NR 150
, Wis. Adm. Code type list with criteria for identifying, prioritizing, analyzing and seeking public input on relevant issues.
The new rule eliminates the use of Environmental Assessments as a means of WEPA compliance for individual actions. The new rule adds new process and procedures for bigger picture strategic policy analyses.
The fundamental Department policy regarding WEPA, as currently embodied in NR 150, will not change. The rule re-creation will result in a number of procedural changes and a new emphasis on how the Department applies the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, especially to its policy development actions.
Summary and comparison with existing and proposed federal regulations
The 1970 Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) and s.
1.11
, Stats., were modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which established guidelines and regulations to implement the Act. As with other state agencies' WEPA rules, ch.
NR 150
was based in part upon the federal CEQ guidelines. This proposed revision of ch.
NR 150
will remain substantially consistent with the CEQ guidelines.
Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states
Neighboring states have significant differences in their related laws, so the opportunity to gain from their experience is limited. For example, Minnesota requires that counties also follow WEPA-like analysis procedures, whereas Wisconsin counties have no such requirements. Illinois' law covers only actions conducted by the state itself, whereas in Wisconsin, WEPA applies to all actions by other entities that are subject to state approvals.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department of Natural Resources Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis (OEEA) staff reviewed relevant WEPA case law and federal CEQ regulations, obtained the input of an internal team of staff from several Department programs, and involved a broad range of potentially interested and affected external parties.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis
Chapter
NR 150
is an administrative process rule that applies internally to the Department, so impacts to businesses are minimal.
Effect on Small Business
Businesses that may be affected by this rule revision include mainly those that are required to apply for certain DNR permits for projects. The level of environmental analysis required for DNR actions will be considerably less under the proposed rule.
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at
SmallBusinessReg.
Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us
or by calling (608) 266-1959.
Environmental Impact
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.
A Copy of any Comments and Opinion Prepared by the Board of Veterans Affairs under s.
45.03 (2m)
, Stats., for Rules Proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs
Not applicable.
Agency Contact Person
David Siebert, Director
Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis
Phone: (608) 264-6048
David.Siebert@Wisconsin.gov
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Chapter NR 150 - Environmental analysis and review procedures for department actions.
|
3. Subject
|
Implementation of Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, s. 1.11 Wis. Stats.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
X
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
X
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
No
|
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
|
This rule was last updated in a significant way in 1987. Over time, many WEPA process requirements have become duplicative of analysis and public involvement steps in internal review processes and regulatory program processes. This is a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice, especially in the operations of environmental permit review programs. The revised rule emphasizes identifying and eliminating such duplication. This rule proposes to shift resources to conducting issue or policy analyses.
|
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.
|
Businesses that may be affected by this rule revision include mainly those that are required to apply for certain DNR permits for projects. The workload of environmental analysis required for repetitive DNR actions will be considerably less under the proposed rule. Chapter NR 150 is an administrative process rule that applies internally to DNR, so any impacts to businesses are minimal. DNR convened an external group to advise on rule development that included agribusiness, developers, manufacturers, homebuilders, utilities and conservation groups.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
Our external review group included a representative of the WI Towns Assn, as well as an attorney who regularly represents municipalities on wastewater, wetlands, waterway, water supply, stormwater and other environmental issues.
|
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)
|
We estimate that the proposed rule will have a minimal economic impact because it affects the internal operating procedures of the department. It does not directly affect businesses, local governments, or other entities. Although the intent of the proposal is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of department project-specific actions under WEPA, any staff resources made available as a result will be devoted to other issues that address the broader impacts of categories of actions of generally statewide importance.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats. The revised rule will emphasize the analysis of broad issues and policies, de-emphasize workload associated with individual project actions, and provide meaningful public involvement. The new rule will require that the Department: 1) identify and analyze environmental issues important for their geographic, multidisciplinary, or policy scope; 2) analyze issues earlier, when alternative options have not been foreclosed, and on an ongoing basis; 3) provide that environmental analysis information be incorporated into departmental policy and decision-making; 4) define and provide meaningful public involvement; 5) address the information/policy-driven requirements of s. 1.11(2)(e) and (h) as separate from the action/project-driven requirements of s. 1.11(2)(c); 6) identify and eliminate process requirements that have become duplicative over time as a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice; and 7) replace the current Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code type list with criteria for identifying, prioritizing, analyzing and seeking public input on relevant issues.
Alternatives to the proposed rule changes would include leaving NR 150 as it currently is. This alternative was rejected as not meeting the need to more effectively and efficiently implement s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
This revised rule is similar to the existing rule, in that it substantially follows the guidelines of the federal Council on Environmental Quality, as directed by s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Neighboring states have significant differences in their related laws, so the opportunity to gain from their experience is limited. For example, Minnesota requires that counties also follow WEPA-like analysis procedures, whereas Wisconsin counties have no such requirements. Illinois' law covers only actions conducted by the state itself, whereas in Wisconsin, WEPA applies to all actions by other entities that are subject to state approvals.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
David Siebert
|
608-264-6048
|
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)
|
None
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
None
|
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:
NR 150 is largely an internal process rule, so rule changes would have no measurable impact upon small businesses.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
Not applicable.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
This rule carries no enforcement provisions. Disputes regarding the need to conduct an analysis and the procedures to follow for the analysis and public involvement have administrative and judicial avenues of appeal.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
(
DNR # FR-24-11)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to Section
28.05 (3) (am)
, Wis. Stats.,
the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to ch.
NR 1
, Wisc. Adm. Code, relating to the promulgation of a rule that establishes a program allowing cooperating foresters and private contractors to assist the state in regenerating harvested areas of state lands to meet the annual allowable timber harvest established under Wis. Stat. s.
28.025
. The statute also directs the department to pay for the services from a portion of the proceeds received from timber sales. Section
28.05 (3) (am)
Wis. Stats., created by
2011 Act 32
; and Section
28.025
, Wis. Stats., created by
2005 Act 166
, required the Department to promulgate this rule.
Hearing Dates and Locations
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2013
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Location:
State Natural Resources Building
Room G09 (GEF 2)
101 S. Webster Street, Madison, WI 53703
/code/register/2013/687b/rulemaking_notices
false
register
/code/register/2013/687b/rulemaking_notices/2/1
register/687/B/rulemaking_notices CR 13-022
register/687/B/rulemaking_notices CR 13-022
section
true
Links to Admin. Code and Statutes in this Register are to current versions, which may not be the version that was referred to in the original published document.
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 Tim Beyer at (920) 892-8756 x3047 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Documents
The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be viewed and downloaded and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
(Search this Web site using the Natural Resources Board Order No. FR-24-11). If you do not have Internet access, a personal copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents may be obtained from, Tim Beyer, 1155 Pilgrim Road, Plymouth, WI 53073or by calling (920) 892-8756 x3047.
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Tim Beyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1155 Pilgrim Road, Plymouth WI 53073 or by e-mail to
tim.beyer@wisconsin.gov
. Comments may be submitted until April 8th, 2013. 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.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority to promulgate the proposed rules under the statutory authority
2011 Act 32
, Section
913e
., s.
28.05 (3) (am)
, Wis. Stat., directs the department to, by rule, establish a program that allows cooperating foresters and private contactors to assist the state in regenerating harvested areas of state lands to meet the annual allowable timber harvest established under Wis. Stat. s.
28.025
. The statute also directs the department to pay for the services from a portion of the proceeds received from timber sales.
Related rule or statute
Sections
28.02
,
28.025
,
28.04
and
28.05
, Stats., give authority to the department to hold and acquire forestland, to manage it sustainably for numerous purposes and benefits, to identify and undertake allowable timber harvests, and to regenerate said affected annual harvest areas.
Plain language analysis
This rule will include provisions authorizing the department to contract with cooperating foresters and private contractors to conduct artificial and natural forest regeneration activities including site preparation, tree planting, and invasive species control associated with forest regeneration. The rule shall authorize cooperating foresters and private contractors with whom the department contracts under this paragraph to receive a portion of the proceeds from timber harvests on state lands.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
The federal government provides a similar mechanism on federal lands. The USDA Forest Service utilizes the Knutson-Vandenberg – Brush Disposal (KV-BD) accounts, which are deductions from timber sales to fund forest regeneration and reduce fire hazard. The USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizes Forest Management Deductions (FMD) under 25. CFR §
163.25
for a similar purpose.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
A search of rules in Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa and Illinois revealed that these adjacent states do not have any similar rules.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
2005 Act 166
promulgated the process to provide an inventory of all forested public lands, identify the forest resources available for management, develop annual allowable harvest levels, and undertake such management within 90% and 110% of those levels. Act 166 further provided a mechanism, through the use of Cooperating Foresters, to assist the department in establishing timber sales. What was not provided was an additional funding source to implement pre and post-harvest regeneration treatments in the areas identified to be managed. These funds are needed to ensure the forest continues to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post-harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state and certification guidelines. To date, department owned lands have seen a 190% increase in timber sale activity since 2005 from approximately 9700 acres to approximately 25,000 acres per year. With an increase in timber sale activities, regeneration needs closely follow the acres harvested.
In 2009, the Division of Forestry went through a property level analysis of what their projected annual regeneration needs would be (both in cost and area) for the next 10 years based on projected annual allowable harvest levels based on
2005 Act 166
. It was determined that the regeneration costs (manpower, services, and supplies) significantly out-paced the funding available to perform regeneration related work given the increase in harvest levels.
In the absence of the new rule the department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. In the event that these funding sources would fall short of regeneration needs, the ability to achieve future desired conditions on state lands will continue to be hampered. In addition, land managers may be apprehensive to manage more complex ecosystems where a quick response of regeneration is required. The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
There are no new compliance, reporting, or bookkeeping requirements with the proposed rule.
Effect on Small Business
This rule does affect small business. It would create opportunities for cooperating foresters and private contractors to expand into providing more services on state-owned lands; but the rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements on small businesses
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at
DNRSmallBusinessCoordinator@Wisconsin.gov
or by calling (608) 266-1959.
Environmental Assessment
The Department has made a determination that this is a Type III action under Chapter
NR 150
, Wis. Admin. Code. No environmental assessment is required.
Agency Contact Person
Teague Prichard, State Lands Specialist
Bureau of Forest Management
Ph: 608-264-8883
Email:
Teague.Prichard@Wisconsin.gov
.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Chapter NR 1, contracting with cooperating foresters and private contractors for regenerations services, s. NR 1.27.
|
3. Subject
|
Contracting with cooperating foresters or private contractors for forest regeneration services on harvested lands owned and managed by the Department of Natural Resource.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽
GPR
⍽
FED
⍽
PRO
⍽
PRS
X
SEG
⍽
SEG-S
|
20.370 (1) (cy)
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
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
|
X
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
|
2005 Assembly Bill 254 and the resulting 2005 Act 166 promulgated the process to provide an inventory of all forested Department of Natural Resource lands, identify the forest resources available for management, develop annual allowable harvest levels, and undertake such management within 90% and 110% of those levels. Act 166 further provided a mechanism, through the use of Cooperating Foresters, to assist the department in establishing timber sales. What was not provided was an additional funding source to implement pre and post harvest regeneration treatments in the areas harvested. These funds are needed to ensure the forest continues to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state and certification guidelines. To date, Department owned lands have seen a 190% increase in timber sale activity since 2005 from approximately 9700 acres to approximately 25,000 acres per year. With an increase in timber sale activities, regeneration needs closely follow the acres harvested.
In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. These funding sources fall short of regeneration needs and the ability to achieve future desired conditions on state lands will continue to be hampered. In addition, land managers may be apprehensive to harvest in more complex ecosystems where a quick response of regeneration is required. The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred.
|
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.
|
Entities that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments include: cooperating foresters and private contractors that perform regeneration services. The department utilized a e-mail distribution list that includes registered cooperating foresters, members of Wisconsin Consulting Foresters (WCF), and small businesses that perform regeneration services.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
No local units of government are affected by this rule and as such none were involved in the development of the EIA
|
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 rule will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be incurred. Any oversight or administration of this rule will be performed by existing staff.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred. In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. Implementing the rule will allow the Department to meet land management objectives identified in property master plans and provide assurances that harvested lands will be regenerated and those harvested lands will be managed accordingly.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Wisconsin's state forests will continue to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state guidelines.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
The Federal Government provides a similar mechanism on federal lands. The USDA Forest Service utilizes the Knutson-Vandenberg) – Brush Disposal (KV-BD) accounts, which are deductions from timber sales to fund forest regeneration and reduce fire hazard. The USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizes Forest Management Deductions (FMD) under 25. CFR § 163.25 for a similar purpose and method.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
A search of rules in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota revealed that these states do not have similar rules
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Tim Beyer
|
(920) 892-8756 x3047
|
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 rule will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
There are no new compliance, reporting, or bookkeeping requirements with the proposed rule.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule is not expected to have any adverse 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:
There will be no impact on small businesses.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule provided a positive economic impact on small businesses the perform regeneration services. Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be borne by small businesses. It simply provides a funding mechanism to fund regeneration work on state managed lands.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
There are no enforcement provisions specific to this rule other that enforcement of performance measures outlined in State of Wisconsin Professional Services contracts (specific performance criteria, state labor laws, etc.).
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽
Yes
X
No
|
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Pharmacy Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Pharmacy Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
and
450.11
, Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss.
450.01 (7)
and
450.11
, Wis. Stats., the Pharmacy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend s.
Phar 7.01 (1) (e)
relating to delivery of prescription drugs.
Hearing Information
Date:
Monday, April 15, 2013
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
,
Room 121A
Madison, WI
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 by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
Comments may be submitted to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on April 15, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
15,08 (5) (b), allows each examining board to "promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or profession."
Section
450.02 (3) (a)
, Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules "[r]elating to the
…
distribution and dispensing of prescription drugs."
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
The proposed amendment to S.
Phar 7.01 (1) (e)
allows the delivery of the prescription medication(s) to be delivered to a location of the patient's choice. The consultation requirement is met by the pharmacist providing a notice that consultation is available relative to the prescription(s) being delivered. In these cases directions and a means of contacting the pharmacist must accompany the delivery.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
Under Illinois law, dispensing does not mean the physical delivery to a patient or a patient's representative in a home or institution by a designee of a pharmacist by a common carrier [Pharmacy Practice Act, 225 ILCS 85/sec. 3(m)].
Under Ill. Admin. Code title 68, s. 1330.70: "Oral counseling is not practicable for the patient or patient's agent, the pharmacist shall use alternative forms of patient information. When used in place of oral counseling, alternative forms of patient information shall advise the patient or agent that the pharmacist may be contacted for consultation in person at the pharmacy or by toll-free or collect telephone service."
Iowa:
Under Iowa law, there is a requirement that pharmacists be responsible for delivery of prescription drugs to the patient or patient's agent; no specific location of such delivery is mentioned. If in the pharmacist's professional judgment oral counseling is not practicable, the pharmacist may use alternative forms of patient information. "Not practicable" refers to patient variables including, but not limited to, the absence of the patient or patient's caregiver. When used in place of oral counseling, alternative forms of patient information shall advise the patient or caregiver that the pharmacist may be contacted for consultation in person at the pharmacy by toll-free telephone or collect telephone call. [Iowa Admin. Code 657-6.2(7); 657-6.14(4)]
Michigan:
Under Michigan administrative rules, a prescription is dispensed to the patient or the patient's caregiver. A caregiver is defined as the parent, guardian or other individual who has assumed responsibility for providing a patient's care. A pharmacist shall communicate to the patient or the patient's caregiver, necessary and appropriate information regarding safe and effective medication use at the time a prescription is dispensed. The information shall be communicated orally and in person, except when the patient or patient's caregiver is not at the pharmacy or when a specific communication barrier prohibits oral communication. In either situation, providing printed material designed to help the patient use the medication safely and effectively satisfies the requirements. A consultation is not required if a patient or a patient's caregiver refuses a consultation. [Mich. Admin. Code r 338.490]
Minnesota:
Under Minnesota administrative rules, when a new filled prescription or a refilled prescription for which counseling is required is being mailed or delivered to the patient by common carrier or delivery services, the consultation must still be provided but may be accomplished by providing written information to the patient regarding the medication being dispensed and the availability of the pharmacist to answer questions and through a toll-free phone number for long distance calls.. There is nothing in the administrative code which indicates a specific location for a delivery. [Minn. R. 6800.0910]
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Pharmacy Examining Board receives and grants many requests for variances to Phar 7.01 (1) (e). The Pharmacy Examining Board determined that permitting the delivery to a location of a patient's choice would be beneficial to patients and to pharmacies without negatively impacting public safety.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
Delivery of prescriptions is already allowed by rule. The location of the delivery will not have an impact on small business. This rule change will not have an effect on small business.
Agency Contact Person
Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-2377; email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov
.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Section Phar 7.01 (1) (e)
|
3. Subject
|
Prescription drug delivery.
|
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
|
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
|
The current rule does not provide enough flexibility for patients to have their prescription medication delivered to a location of their choice due to the limitation of delivery only to the patient's residence.
|
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 was posted for 14 days for economic comments and none were received.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None. This rule does not affect local governmental units.
|
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)
|
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. Delivery of prescriptions is already allowed by rule. The location of the delivery will not have an impact.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The benefit of implementing the proposed rule would allow patients to have their prescriptions delivered to a location of their choice. In addition, pharmacies would no longer have to request the Pharmacy Examining Board to grant a delivery variance. The Pharmacy Examining Board has determined that permitting the delivery to a location of a patient's choice would be beneficial to patients and to pharmacies without negatively impacting public safety. When prescriptions are delivered, the prescription will be accompanied by appropriate directions and an indication that consultation is available by contacting the pharmacist.
The alternative to the proposed change is for the rule to remain as it currently is which would limit the delivery to a patient's residence only unless a variance is granted by the Pharmacy Examining Board.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The long range implication is patients will be better served by having their prescriptions delivered to more locations than just their place of residence and pharmacies will no longer have to request and wait for the next Board meeting in order to receive delivery variances.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Our four neighboring states do not indicate a limitation on delivery to only the patient's residence. In all four states, the consultation requirement is met by providing printed information, including directions on contacting the pharmacist by phone if a consultation is desired.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services —
Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers, and Land Surveyors in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
,
227.11 (2) (a)
, and
443.17
, Wis. Stats., and interpreting s.443.17, Wis. Stats., the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss.
A-E 2.02 (7) (a)
,
2.02 (7) (b)
, and
2.02 (7) (b) 2.
, relating to electronic seals and signatures.
Hearing Information
Date:
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue,
Room 121
Madison, WI
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 by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to
Shancethea.Leatherwood@wisconsin.gov
. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on April 23, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy and Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at
Shancethea.Leatherwood@ wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors has general power, pursuant to s.
15.08 (5) (b)
, Stats., to promulgate rules for guidance within its profession. The Boards may also promulgate rules that interpret statutes they enforce or administer per s.
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats. Section
443.17
, Stats., regulates the use of seals and is administered by the Board. Therefore, the Board is authorized to promulgate rules that give guidance on the use of seals or signatures.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
Registration seals and signatures must be utilized in the production of plans, drawings, documents, specifications, and reports generated by architects, landscape architects, professional engineers, designers and land surveyors. The proposed rule would allow the afore mentioned professionals to use an electronic seal or signature on documents submitted to governmental agencies as long as the electronic seal or signature conformed to the requirements of subch. II, ch.
137
, Stats. and the governmental agency accepts such documents.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
There are no comparable or existing proposed federal regulations
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors must have a reproducible seal or facsimile, which may be computer generated. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68 ss. 1150, 1380.295 and 1270.58 Illinois code expressly prohibits the use of signatures generated by computers. Illinois requires original signatures only.
Iowa:
Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors must use a certification block on original documents. The certification block requires a seal and a signature. A legible rubber stamp or facsimile of a seal may be used 193C IAC 6.1 (3) (542B) Computer generated seals may be used on final documents. Iowa Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyor licensees may affix a handwritten or secure electronic signature to the certification block as long as the signature is protected by a procedure that is, "adequate to (1) verify the signature is that of a specific person and (2) detect any changes that may be made or attempted after the signature of the specific person is affixed." 193C IAC 6.9 (542B)
Michigan:
Architects, professional engineers, and professional land surveyors may use an embossed seal or a rubber stamp and an original signature only. MICH. ADMIN. Code r.339.15301, 339.16024, 339.17301 (2012).
Minnesota:
Licensed architects, professional engineers, land surveyors, professional landscape architects, professional geologist, or professional soil scientists may use a seal on all plans, specifications, plats, and reports and other documents. Minn. R. 1800.4300 (2012) Furthermore, a signature is required for all plans, specifications, plats reports or other documents. The signature may be stamped, handwritten, or electronically created as long as it creates an accurate representation of the licensee's actual signature. Minn. Stats. Ann. §
326.12 (2012)
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Both the Engineering Section and the A-E Rules committee reviewed similar rules in other states regarding electronic signatures and seals. Discussions were held regarding how to secure electronic seals and signatures in order to avoid misuse or misrepresentation and how to bring the rules in line with subch. II of chapter 137, Stats. regarding electronic signatures. The Board ensures the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of the data used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
The proposed rule will not have any impact on small business as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
Not applicable.
Environmental Assessment/Statement
Not applicable.
Agency Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-4438; email at
Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov
.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original
⍽
Updated
⍽
Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Section A-E 2.02, Wis. Admin. Code
|
3. Subject
|
Electronic seals and signatures.
|
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
|
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
|
The proposed rule would allow architects, landscape architects, professional engineers, designers and land surveyors to use electronic seals or signatures on all plans, drawings, documents, specifications and reports. Currently, all seals and stamps on drawings and specifications to be filed as public documents are required to be original. However, there is a provision that allows for electronic signatures in Wis. Admin Code A-E 2.02 (7) (b) 2.; but the provision is outdated. The proposed rule draft would allow broader use of electronic signatures to be filed as public documents and update the corresponding citation to subch. II, ch. 137, Stats.
|
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 proposed rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website and on the Wisconsin government website for 14 business days to solicit comments from the public. No businesses, business sectors, associations representing business local governmental units or individuals contacted the department about the proposed rule.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
No local governmental units participated in the development of this EIA.
|
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 proposed rule will not impact business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
Electronic seals and signatures will allow greater flexibility in filing plans, specifications, plats, and reports and other documents. The benefit will go towards architects, landscape architects, professional engineers, designers and land surveyors who will be able to choose between electronic seals and signatures or stamped seals and hand written signatures.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Long range implications of the proposed rule will result in greater efficiency in maintaining records and keeping the affected professions up to date with current advancements in technology.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
There are no comparable federal rules.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Illinois:
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors must have a reproducible seal or facsimile, which may be computer generated. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68 ss. 1150, 1380.295 and 1270.58 Illinois code expressly prohibits the use of signatures generated by computers. Illinois requires original seals only.
Iowa:
Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors must use a certification block on original documents. The certification block requires a seal and a signature. A legible rubber stamp or facsimile of a seal may be used. 193C IAC 6.1 (3) (542B) Computer generated seals may be used on final documents. Iowa Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyor licensees may affix a handwritten or secure electronic signature to the certification block as long as the signature is protected by a procedure that is, "adequate to (1) verify the signature is that of a specific person and (2) detect any changes that may be made or attempted after the signature of the specific person is affixed." 193C IAC 6.9 (542B)
Michigan:
Architects, professional engineers, and professional land surveyors may use an embossed seal or a rubber stamp and an original signature only. MICH. ADMIN. Code r.339.15301, 339.16024, 339.17301
Minnesota:
Licensed architects, professional engineers, land surveyors, professional landscape architects, professional geologist, or professional soil scientists may use a seal on all plans, specifications, plats, and reports and other documents. Minn. R. 1800.4300 (2012) Furthermore, a signature is required for all plans, specifications, plats reports or other documents. The signature may be stamped, handwritten, or electronically created as long as it creates an accurate representation of the licensee's actual signature. Minn. Stats. Ann. § 326.12
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Shawn Leatherwood
|
608-261-4438
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
