CR_14-024 Revises Chapter ATCP 55, relating to meat and meat food products.

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 699, 3/14/2014

Rule-Making Notices

Notice of Hearing

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

CR 14-024

(DATCP DOCKET # 13-R-07 )

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule to revise Chapter ATCP 55 , relating to drug residues in meat and meat food products.

DATCP will hold three public hearings at the times and places shown below.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date:   Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Time:   10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   Room 106 (Board Room)
  Department of Agriculture, Trade and
  Consumer Protection
  2811 Agriculture Drive
  Madison, WI 53718

Date:   Tuesday, April 23, 2014
Time:   10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   Room 129
  Eau Claire State Office Building
  718 West Clairemont Avenue
  Eau Claire, WI 54701

Date:   Friday, April 25, 2014
Time:   10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   Room 152B
  200 N. Jefferson Street
  Green Bay, WI 54301

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by April 3, 2014, by writing to Sandra Cleveland, Division of Food Safety, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8911; or by emailing [e-mail] ; or by telephone at [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at [phone]. The hearing facility is handicap accessible.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

DATCP invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearings, the hearing record will remain open until May 9, 2014 , for additional written public comments. Comments may be sent to the Division of Food Safety at the address below, or to [e-mail] , or to http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov .

Copies of Rule

You can obtain a free copy of this hearing draft rule and related documents including the economic impact analysis by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and consumer Protection, Division of Food Safety, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling Sandra Cleveland at [phone] or by emailing [e-mail] . Copies will also be available at the hearing. To view the hearing draft rule online, go to: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov .

Comments or concerns relating to small business may also be addressed to DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, or by email to [e-mail] , or by telephone at [phone].

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) proposes a rule revision for ch. ATCP 55 , Wis. Adm. Code, specifying corrective actions that must be imposed by state-licensed meat establishments on certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producer for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at a state or federally inspected meat establishment.

Statutes interpreted

Section 97.42 , Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 93.07 (1) , 97.09 (4) , and 97.42 (4) , Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

DATCP has broad general authority, under s. 93.07 (1) , Stats., to adopt rules to implement programs under its jurisdiction. DATCP also has general authority under s. 97.09 (4) , Stats., to adopt rules specifying standards to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods. The department has specific authority to promulgate rules related to compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses under s. 97.42 (4) , Stats., which allows the department to establish rules related to the inspections before and after slaughter of all animals and poultry killed or dressed for human consumption at any establishment.

Related statutes and rules

Wisconsin's state meat and poultry inspection program is governed by ch. 97 , Stats. (Food Regulation), including s. 97.42 , Stats. (Compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses). Chapter ATCP 55 interprets and implements ch. 97 , Stats., as it relates to Meat and Meat Food Products.

State meat and poultry inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to provide inspection services to small and very small meat establishments. State meat and poultry inspection programs were established by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to create 21 USC 661 and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to create 21 USC 454 . Section 11015 of Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 "Farm Bill"), enacted on June 18, 2008, amended FMIA and PPIA to establish a new voluntary program that will allow certain selected state-inspected meat establishments to sell their products in interstate commerce.

Title 9, Animal and Animal Products, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) interprets and implements the federal FMIA and PPIA. Section 97.42 (4m) , Stats., and ch. ATCP 55 adopt certain relevant sections of Title 9 that establish slaughter and processing standards for meat and meat products.

Plain language analysis

Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The anti-inflammatory drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.

Meat establishment operators are expected by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators list. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture industry is jeopardized by the few Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residues in livestock and meat products.

Currently ch. ATCP 55 (Meat and meat food products) addresses the production of meat and meat food products starting with the submission of an animal for slaughter for human consumption and, by reference, adopts United States Department of Agriculture regulations prohibiting the slaughter of "downer" cattle (non-ambulatory) for human food or feed destined for bovine animals.

Current rules prohibit slaughter of a food animal for human consumption or submission of a food animal for slaughter if the person knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. The proposed rule will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated. The rule then defines animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on proper administration of animal medications. The department will approve an acceptable course or courses. Completion of the approved course(s) will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian.

The proposed rule also revises s. ATCP 55.07 , which requires a person who knows or has reason to know that he or she is submitting a diseased or injured animal for slaughter to sign and deliver a written statement to the person who will perform the slaughter. The proposed rule will revise the requirement that the written statement include a list of all drugs administered to the animal as treatments or feed within 30 days prior to the slaughter submission date. The rule will instead require that the statement certify that the withdrawal time following administration of all drugs as treatments or feed additives has complied with the manufacturer's recommendations. This revision acknowledges that some drugs may require a longer withdrawal time than 30 days.

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

Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing the risk associated with food safety hazards. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by 9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants.

One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for abattoir operators to avoid accepting animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before accepting animals for slaughter. The National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List.

State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Under this agreement, state meat inspection programs are required to adopt regulations that are "at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. In addition, Wisconsin is one of three states recently accepted into the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program allowing certain selected meat establishments to ship their products in interstate commerce. States in the CIS program must adopt regulations that are the "same as" federal meat inspection regulations.

The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. It will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action is needed.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and all meat slaughtered and processed in Michigan is federally-inspected by USDA. 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. Minnesota and Iowa operate state meat inspection programs. All processors of meat and meat products, whether operating under state meat-inspection programs or by the USDA program, are expected to minimize the risk associated with drug residues and to consult the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before purchasing animals for slaughter. The approach proposed in this rule revision is innovative and goes beyond requirements in neighboring states which operate state meat inspection programs. Although enforcement of the provisions in the proposed rule is expected to be infrequent, the provisions are necessary to protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Proposed rule changes were developed after careful analysis of federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. The department consulted with a large livestock medication and veterinary services company, and with the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association before developing the proposed rule. Each of these entities supported the intent of the proposed rule.

Effect on Small Business

This rule change is anticipated to have a very slight impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on livestock producers who must attend a course and improve documentation of animal medications as a result of the proposed rule. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility rate payers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Rule summary

The proposed rule will specify corrective actions that must be imposed by state-licensed meat establishments on certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producer for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at state- or federally-inspected meat establishments.

Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.

Meat establishment operators are expected, but not required in regulation, by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators List. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture industry is jeopardized by the few Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residue in livestock and meat products.

Current rules prohibit slaughter of a food animal for human consumption or submission of a food animal for slaughter if the person knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. The proposed rule will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated. The rule then defines animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on proper administration of animal medications. The department will approve an acceptable course or courses. Completion of the approved course(s) will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian.

The proposed rule also revises s. ATCP 55.07 , which requires a person who knows or has reason to know that he or she is submitting a diseased or injured animal for slaughter to sign and deliver a written statement to the person who will perform the slaughter. The proposed rule will revise the requirement that the written statement include a list of all drugs administered to the animal as treatments or feed within 30 days prior to the slaughter submission date. The rule will instead require that the statement certify that the withdrawal time following administration of all drugs as treatments or feed additives has complied with the manufacturer's recommendations. This revision acknowledges that some drugs may require a longer withdrawal time than 30 days.

Small businesses affected

State-inspected meat establishment operators, who accept livestock for slaughter, and livestock producers included on USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who submit their animals for slaughter at state meat establishments, will be affected by this rule. This proposed rule is anticipated to have a very slight impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on a small number of livestock producers listed on the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who, under the proposed rule, would be required to attend a course and improve documentation of their use of animal medications. There will be a slight impact on the veterinarians of these few producers, because completion of the course will require involvement of the veterinarian. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.

Reporting, bookkeeping, and other procedures

The proposed rule would require state-licensed meat establishment operators who slaughter livestock to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. The proposed rule would require a producer who is listed on the federal Residue Repeat Violators List to provide written evidence to a meat establishment operator that they have completed a course on proper administration of animal medications before the state-licensed meat establishment may accept animals for slaughter from that producer.

Professional skills required

The proposed rule does not require any new professional skills by small businesses. However, livestock producers included on USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who wish to submit their animals for slaughter will need to complete a course on proper administration of animal medications. Completion of the approved course will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian.

Accommodation for small business

State meat inspection programs only regulate small businesses. State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement under USDA's authority and must meet federal "at least equal to" requirements. No special accommodation may be made for small businesses to meet the requirements of this proposed rule. However, the rule is expected to have very little impact on meat establishment operators and a slight impact on only a very small number of livestock producers. The rule will affect this small number of livestock producers, but it will benefit small state-inspected meat establishments by further ensuring that the livestock they accept for slaughter are free of drug residues.

Conclusion

Given the potential health risks associated with drug residues in animals for human food, consumers, meat establishment operators, and livestock producers will all benefit from a mandatory procedure for reducing the likelihood that the human food supply contains animals from producers who have been listed for repeated tissue drug-residue violations.

This rule will not have a significant adverse effect on "small business" and is not subject to the delayed "small business" effective date provided in s. 227.22 (2) (e) , Stats.

DATCP will, to the maximum extent feasible, seek voluntary compliance with this rule.

DATCP Contact

Cindy Klug, Director

Bureau of Food 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
Drug residues in meat and meat products
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   X FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			102
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		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 proposed rule will specify corrective actions that must be required by state-licensed meat establishments from certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producers for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at state- or federally-inspected meat establishments. Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.
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 will have little impact on state inspected meat establishments at which livestock are slaughtered (about 100 establishments), and will have a slight impact on a very small number of livestock producers and veterinarians.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Local governmental units are not impacted by this rule change and did not participate 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)
State-Inspected Meat Establishments: Current rules prohibit submission for slaughter of a food animal for human consumption if the person submitting the animal knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. This rule change will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated, with animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List defined as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on the proper administration of animal medications. This rule change is anticipated to have little impact on operators of meat establishment at which livestock are slaughtered, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Livestock Producers: Under the rule change, livestock producers who are listed on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List will be required to complete a course on the proper administration of animal medications and present written documentation of their course completion before submitting animals for human consumption for slaughter at a state-inspected meat establishment. Very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list and this rule change will have no impact on the majority of livestock producers who follow proper procedures for the administration of animal medications. Livestock producers who take a course in proper administration of animal medications will have to bear costs associated with the course presentation (likely a registration fee to cover expenses incurred by the course presenters) and time away from their regular work. We characterize this impact as slight. Veterinarians: Successful completion of a course in proper administration of animal medications by a producer will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian. This involvement will require a time commitment by a very small number of veterinarians. We characterize this impact as slight.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule change will benefit state inspected meat establishments, all of whom are small businesses, by clarifying procedures they must follow in the event that a producer on the Repeat Residue Violators List submits a food animal for slaughter. Implementing these mandatory procedures will further decrease the likelihood that animals with illegal drug residues enter the human food chain, and will protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations. It adds an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action would normally be taken. The rule change will help livestock producers who are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List improve their practices for administering animal medications and avoid future problems. If the rule is not implemented, there is a chance that producers on the Repeat Residue Violators List would present animals containing illegal residues to unknowing meat establishment operators. Although this scenario is unlikely,the economic importance of the meat industry in Wisconsin is high enough that prudent steps should be taken to make illegal drug residues in meat even more unlikely to occur.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, the rule change will have a positive long-term economic impact on Wisconsin's meat industry.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing the risk associated with food safety hazards. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by 9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants. One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for abattoir operators to avoid accepting animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected, but not required in regulation, to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before accepting animals for slaughter. The list is compiled by the National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS which has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List. Federal regulations do not require producers on the list to take any corrective actions prior to submitting animals for slaughter. Federal action against residue repeat violators is generally not taken unless the US Food and Drug Administration investigates, issues a warning letter and, upon further violations, obtains an injunction against the livestock producer. This process is cumbersome, lengthy, and does not happen often. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations, and it will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action is needed.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and all meat slaughtered and processed in Michigan is federally-inspected by USDA. 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. Minnesota and Iowa operate state meat inspection programs. All processors of meat and meat products, whether operating under state meat-inspection programs or the USDA program, are expected to minimize the risk associated with drug residues and to consult the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before purchasing animals for slaughter. The approach proposed in this rule revision is innovative and goes beyond requirements in neighboring states which operate state meat inspection programs. Although enforcement of the provisions in the proposed rule is expected to be infrequent, the provisions are necessary to protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Cindy Klug, Director — Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection				[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)

This proposed rule is anticipated to have little impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. However, meat establishments are already expected to review the list before accepting animals for slaughter. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a slight short-term negative economic impact on a small number of livestock producers listed on the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who, under the proposed rule, would be required to attend a course and improve documentation of the use of animal medications. The primary economic impact for these producers would be the registration cost for the course and time away from their farm duties. There will be a slight impact on the veterinarians of these few producers, because completion of the course will require involvement of the veterinarian.

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

To determine the potential impact on small businesses, DATCP requested input from a meat processors professional organization, and the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association.

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

The rule is expected to only have an appreciable impact on meat establishments interacting with a small number of livestock producers. The rule will affect this small number of livestock producers, but it will benefit small state-inspected meat establishments by further ensuring that the livestock they accept for slaughter is free of drug residues. Under the proposed rule, DATCP must approve the course on proper administration of animal medications that livestock producers on the Repeat Residue Violators List would be required to attend before they can submit animals for slaughter at a state-inspected meat establishment. In evaluating course(s) for approval, the DATCP will carefully balance the effectiveness of the learning activities in the course with the number and duration (and thus economic impact) of these learning activities to ensure that an undue economic burden is not placed course attendees.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

Enforcement of the rule will occur as part of normal meat establishment regulatory activities. Typically, noncompliance with regulatory requirements results in a Noncompliance Report (NR). Upon receiving an NR, the establishment operator takes corrective actions, which are described to the Meat Safety Inspector. In cases of noncompliance related to suspected drug residues, carcasses may be retained for testing. Non-violative carcasses would be released for further processing and/or sale. Violative carcasses would be condemned in accordance with normal procedures.

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—

EmR1205

(DNR# WM-24-13(E) )

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014 , 29.041 , and 227.24 (4) , Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014 , 29.041 , and 29.192 , Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public meetings on revisions to Chapters NR 1 , 10 , 13 , and 45 , Wis. Adm. Code, related to deer management, hunting, and implementation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee Report. This emergency order has been adopted by the Natural Resources Board and the public hearing is being held to fulfill statutory requirements.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date:   Friday, March 28, 2014
Time:   2:00 p.m.
Location:   Natural Resources State Office Building
  (GEF-2)
  101 S. Webster St.
  Room 613
  Madison, WI 53707

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 Scott Loomans at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Copies of the Rule and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov or by searching the keywords "administrative rules" on the department's website. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to [e-mail] . 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. Loomans.

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 rulemaking. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Plain language rule analysis

Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker made a promise to appoint a "Deer Trustee" to review white-tailed deer management programs and hunting in Wisconsin. In October of 2011 Dr. James C. Kroll, officially known as Wisconsin's white-tailed deer trustee, entered into a contract with the State of Wisconsin to conduct an independent, objective and scientifically-based review of Wisconsin's deer management practices. The White-tailed Deer Trustee's report was released to the public in July, 2012.

The objective of these rules, which are in effect, is to work with sportsmen and sportswomen and other stakeholders in order to implement ideas and solutions from the Deer Trustee's report to forge a new age for deer management.

Sections 1 to 6 update Natural Resources Board policy so that the term "population objective" and "goal" are used consistently and for concise wording.

Section 7 creates introductory material that organizes the current contents of ch. NR 10 as Subchapter 1 and prepares for the creation of another subchapter related to the deer management assistance program.

Section 8 creates a definition of "afield" for the purpose of establishing that a deer cannot be possessed by someone other than the person who tagged it if the person who tagged the deer is not also present with the deer while afield, similar to current rules.

Section 9 updates the definition of "archery hunt" and the associated cross-reference to the laws which establish the archery licenses so that it continues to be accurate following the enactment of statutes related to hunting with crossbows.

Sections 10, 11, 25, 34, 36, 38, and 41 establish that CWD management zones will be identified as CWD-affected areas and are based on counties, consistent with proposed deer management unit boundaries.

Sections 12 and 13 establish definitions of private and public land so that bonus deer hunting permits can be issued as valid only for use on land not open to public hunting or as valid only for use on lands which are open to public hunting, but not valid on both types of land. Lands which are privately owned but open to public hunting under the managed forest law program are public lands for purposes of this provision.

Sections 14, 22, and 28 update cross references related to sharp-tailed grouse, fisher, and bear management zones or subzones so that the deer management unit map in effect in 2013 continues to be the one cross referenced.

Sections 15 to 21 of this proposal establish the deer hunting season dates for gun, archery, muzzleloader, and deer hunting by youth hunters. The standard deer hunting season framework established in these sections is:

Bow & Arrow/Archery	Saturday nearest September 15 and continuing through the Sunday nearest January 6.
Youth	Two consecutive days beginning on the Saturday nearest October 8.
October antlerless-only firearm ( occurs only in those units or subunits where CWD or other disease has been found, and only after promulgation of emergency rules pursuant to s. 29.016(2), Stats.)	Four consecutive days beginning on a Thursday and ending on the Sunday nearest, but not later than October 15 th .
Traditional 9-day November firearm deer season	Saturday before Thanksgiving Day Holiday and continuing for 9 days.
Muzzleloader only	Beginning on the day after the traditional November firearm deer season and continuing for 10 days.
December 4-day antlerless season (in central forest and central farmland zone counties only)	Beginning on the second Thursday following the Thanksgiving Day holiday.
Holiday antlerless firearm deer season (in southern farmland zone counties)	Beginning on December 24 and continuing through January 1.

Noteworthy changes to current rule are that there is no longer a 4-day December antlerless-only, any-firearm-type deer season in the northern forest or southern farmland zones. This section establishes that a season commonly referred to as the December holiday hunt will now begin on December 24 and continue through January 1 and it will be antlerless only. The holiday hunt will be held in all areas of the former CWD management zone and the entire portion of counties which had previously been partially located in the CWD management zone. The department could extend the holiday season to additional counties and this would normally happen after a recommendation by the counties deer management advisory committee. This section eliminates references to state park hunting seasons which are no longer needed because state statute has established that deer hunting is generally allowed in state parks. This section retains language which establishes the seasons for certain state parks when it is still needed because the existing seasons are different than the general statewide seasons. Muzzleloader only seasons are an example of the type season variations that have existed at some state parks. Finally, this section eliminates state park deer management unit designations and limited entry state park deer hunts.

These sections establish a general bag limit of one buck during firearm deer seasons and one buck during the archery seasons, plus additional antlerless deer where permits are available.

Finally, these sections make a number of remedial changes for consistency with state statute related to the elimination of earn-a-buck regulations for the first buck harvested and establish that, when bonus buck regulations are in place, there is a maximum season limit of three between all license types.

Section 23 restores the protected status of white deer in a CWD affected area.

Section 24 maintains cross-references related to hunting hours for species that have no hunting hour restrictions except at times when a firearm deer season is open.

Section 26 repeals a cross-reference related to blaze orange requirements during deer seasons in CWD zones which is not necessary because blaze orange requirements are already established in statute.

Section 27 repeals a historic prohibition of the possession of firearms in the field on the day before the traditional 9-day firearm deer season.

Section 29 revises population goals so that they will be expressed as management objectives to increase, maintain, or decrease the deer population density in a management unit. Deer management units will generally be the same as counties with exceptions for metropolitan subunits and areas within the exterior boundaries of the Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Menominee, and Red Cliff reservations. This section establishes county deer management committees which will be advisory to the department. This section also establishes antlerless permits and their allowable uses and methods of distribution. This section establishes a $12.00 fee for bonus permits which are issued for a CWD-affected area and a $6.00 fee for bonus permits issued under the deer management assistance program. Finally, this section establishes that one bonus buck may be harvested in the southern farmland zone or units with an objective to decrease or stabilize the deer population instead of just in a CWD affected area. The harvest of one antlerless deer is required before the harvest of a bonus buck and there is a limit of one bonus buck per year. Bonus buck regulations are in effect for the 2015 season except that hunters who earned buck authorization stickers in 2013 may use them in 2014.

Section 30 modifies the tagging procedures so that a deer possessed in the field must be accompanied by the person who tagged it, even if the deer has already been registered. Deer which have been registered may be possessed and transported on roadways or possessed at a home or established businesses (taxidermist, butcher shop, etc.) by someone other than the person who tagged it, consistent with current rules.

Section 31 establishes that a harvest registration confirmation number must be legibly printed on the carcass tag to show proof that a deer has been registered with the department under an electronic or telephone registration system. This section also maintains the current prohibition of processing a deer while in the field, except that it may be divided into as many as 5 parts to help with removing it from the field.

Section 32 modifies deer registration procedures to allow telephone or electronic recording of harvest. The ability to require in-person registration in areas is retained if the department determines that is necessary for research, collecting tissue samples, or during transition periods. Deer and bear harvest must be registered with the department by 5:00 p.m. of the day after the deer is taken into possession. Registration requirements will be the same statewide for both firearm and archer harvested deer. This section also clarifies that an antlerless deer may not be possessed in the field outside of the unit of harvest except on a public highway or at a dwelling or established business such as a butcher shop or taxidermist's place of business, and then only after first being registered. This is similar to current restrictions which prohibit transportation of a deer outside the unit of harvest prior to registration but is amended so the rule remains effective to enforce restrictions on illegal use of tags when electronic harvest registration is allowed.

Section 33 establishes deer management units which will generally be based on counties and establishes metropolitan deer management subunits and identifies tribal lands. This section preserves the current metropolitan deer management units. The note in this Section also maintains the deer management unit map that was in effect in 2013 because those boundaries continue to be used for other purposes such as the basis for the fisher management zone map.

Section 35 repeals the existing deer management regions map and replaces it with a comparable but simplified zone map that is more aligned along county boundaries. This map also identifies where certain antlerless tags can be used and to describe deer season frameworks.

Section 37 establishes the deer management assistance program to assist with specialized management of deer in localized areas and for specific purposes. This section establishes fees and other conditions for participation in the program.

Section 39 eliminates the prohibition on shooting deer under an agricultural deer damage shooting permit on the day before the traditional 9-day November firearm deer season.

Section 40 updates a cross-reference related to establishing the harvest quota for tribal members in the ceded territories.

Section 42 repeals the requirement to obtain a special permit before hunting deer in a state park in the CWD management zone.

Federal regulatory analysis

These state rules and statutes do not relieve individuals from the restrictions, requirements and conditions of federal statutes and regulations. Regulating the hunting and trapping of native species falls within the purview of state fish and wildlife agencies.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and to manage white-tailed deer herds. All of the surrounding states utilize a range of hunting seasons and allow the use of archery equipment, firearms and muzzleloading firearms at certain times. The seasons proposed in this rule order do not vary significantly from the hunting opportunities that are available in other states.

Illinois

The Illinois archery season runs from October 1, 2013 - January 19, 2014 except that it is closed during the firearm deer season in those portions of the state that hold a firearm deer season. Illinois has two periods for firearm deer hunting, a muzzleloader season, and special CWD and antlerless-only seasons. The first firearm season in 2013 is November 22 - 24 and the second season is December 5 - 8. The muzzleloader season is Dec. 13 - 15. The special CWD and antlerless-only seasons occur on December 26 - 29 and January 17 - 19, 2014. A youth firearm deer hunt is open on October 12 - 14. All firearm hunting permits are distributed first through a tiered drawing system where residents have a higher chance of being selected for a permit than non-residents, then through a random daily drawing, and finally they are offered over-the-counter on a first-come first-served basis until the unit's quota is reached. Hunters who are eligible to purchase a hunting permit receive an either-sex permit and one bonus antlerless-only permit. There is no limit on the number of resident archery licenses that will be issued, and each resident archery license includes an antlerless-only and an either sex permit. Non-resident archery licenses also include an either sex permit and an antlerless-only permit, but are allocated through a lottery system.

Iowa

In Iowa, there are two archery seasons, two muzzleloader seasons, and two shotgun seasons. There is also an antlerless-only season, a youth hunt for residents, and a holiday season for nonresidents. The archery season runs from October 1 – December 6 and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The muzzleloader seasons run from October 12 – 20 (residents only) and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The shotgun seasons run from December 7 – 11 and December 14 – 22. The antlerless-only season runs from January 11 – 19, 2014, the youth hunt runs from September 21 – October 6, and the holiday season runs from December 24 – January 2, 2014. When a hunter purchases an `Any Deer License', they are entitled to harvest either a buck or an antlerless deer statewide. Hunters also have the option to purchase an `Antlerless-only License' which is valid for a specific zone in the state. The number of antlerless licenses available in any particular zone is determined by a quota system, and hunters are able to purchase these licenses on a first-come first-served basis until the quota is reached.

Michigan

Michigan has one firearm season, two archery seasons, and one muzzleloader season, as well as two antlerless-only seasons and a youth hunt. The firearm season run November 15 – 30. The archery seasons runs October 1 – November 14 and December 1 – January 1, 2014. Michigan's muzzleloader-only season is split into three zones with each zone's season occurring in December and lasting for either 10 or 17 days. The antlerless-only seasons run from September 21-22 and December 23 – January 1, 2014 and the youth hunt occurs on Sept 21-22. Hunters interested in harvesting an antlerless deer must purchase an antlerless license that is valid within a specific DMU for use on either public land or private land. In some DMUs, these licenses may only be purchased over the counter, whereas in others there is an application process and drawing.

Minnesota

Minnesota has one archery season, one firearm season that is divided into four separate zones, and one muzzleloader season. There is also a special archery season on Camp Ripley (a military base) and a youth season. The archery season runs from September 14 – December 31. The firearm season runs November 9 – 17, November 9 – 24, or November 23 – December 1 depending on the zone. The muzzleloader season runs November 30 – December 15. The special archery hunt on Camp Ripley occurs on October 26 – 27 and November 2-3. The youth hunt runs from October 17 – 20. Antlerless permits are distributed through a license lottery in "lottery" areas of the state. In "Hunter Choice", "Managed", or "Intensive" areas licenses are either-sex. Bonus permits for antlerless deer are available over the counter for use in managed and intensive areas.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Implementation of the deer trustee's report will result in establishing a number of new policies for deer management and hunting management compared to current rules. The primary policy alternatives evaluated in development of these rules are ones recommended in the report. Throughout this rulemaking process, the department and its partners did evaluate other policy alternatives as they were identified.

The full report is located on the Wisconsin Department of Administration's website at: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/section.asp?linkid=239&locid=0 .

Revisions to ch. NR 1 are minor and consist of an update to Natural Resources Board policy so that the term "population objective" and "goal" are used consistently throughout the board order and for concise wording. This rule order favors the term "objective" to describe the deer population level that management activities are designed to achieve. The terms "objective" and "goal" are very similar and "objective" is favored in this rulemaking because it was a recommendation of the trustee's report.

Chapter NR 10 establishes most of the deer population management policy and practices and hunting regulations that are in place today. Currently, ch. NR 10 establishes the Sex-Age-Kill model for estimating deer populations, deer population goals, and deer management units. These rules repeal a requirement to use that specific population model. However, these rules do not prohibit the department from continuing to analyze deer populations using population models. The department will continue to use population models, such as the Sex-Age-Kill model, to develop population information. These rules will replace the current population goals by eliminating numeric goals and replacing them with a simplified statement of objectives to "increase, stabilize, or decrease the deer population." These rules establish a set of metrics to monitor progress towards the objective. These rules significantly reduce the number of deer management units and establish that they are generally the same as the county boundaries with exceptions for metropolitan subunits and tribal lands. These rules do not change the department's current requirement to evaluate deer management unit boundaries and population goals or objectives on a recurring three year basis.

Under these rules the department will be able to modify antlerless harvest quotas and permit levels on an annual basis. These rules establish that the department will seek input from groups or representatives for certain deer related interests in establishing quotas by creating county deer management advisory committees . Through these committees, the department will seek comment from members of the public on the status of the deer herd. The committees will usually be chaired by the chairperson for the county delegation of the Conservation Congress. Other members of the committee will normally be a representative of Wisconsin's Chippewa bands if in ceded territories and a representative for; agriculture, forestry, tourism, transportation and local government.

Under this proposal, hunters in most of the state will continue to receive an antlerless deer tag with the purchase of a firearm or archery license. This tag will be comparable to the current "herd control unit" tag which is issued in units that are 20% or more over the established population goal. Under the proposal, these tags will be valid in many but potentially not all farmland units. There is flexibility to establish that antlerless tags issued automatically with deer hunting licenses are not valid in farmland units that have a population objective to increase or stabilize the deer population. The department would establish this after natural resources board approval of a secretary's order, and following evaluation and a recommendation from county deer management advisory committees and the department. The department currently issues additional herd control tags for the cost of a $2.00 issuance fee but those tags will be discontinued by this rule. Under this proposal, the standard fee of $12.00, also the current fee for a bonus permit, will apply for all antlerless permits which are in addition to the one that was issued with hunting licenses. These rules also establish a $12.00 fee for additional antlerless tags which allow harvest of deer in the CWD-affected area. Under statute, $5.00 of the fee for these permits will be credited to an account for management and testing of chronic wasting disease. Through the deer management assistance program, these rules allow establishing unique antlerless deer permits that are specific for use on properties enrolled in the deer management assistance program. A recommendation resulting from the public involvement process that preceded development of these rules was that the fee for bonus permits should be $10.00. That is not proposed in these rules because the bonus permit fee is already established by statute and the department does not have rulemaking authority to change it. Other permits, the fee for which the department does have rulemaking authority, are generally also $12.00 for consistency with bonus permits.

An important change in the allowable use of most antlerless deer permits is that, under this proposal, they will be valid for harvesting antlerless deer only on private land or only on lands open to public hunting. Historically, bonus permits had been valid for hunting on any type of land in the correct management unit. This rule change is intended to address hunter concerns about harvest and hunting pressure on public lands. This regulation may reduce the level of antlerless deer harvest on lands open to public hunting. Under the proposal, public lands are defined as land owned, under easement to, or lease by federal, state or county government if that land is open to public hunting and also includes private lands enrolled in the managed forest or forest crop program. This provision will be phased in over a two year period as automated license system updates are made.

A variety of related hunting regulations changes are proposed in these rules. Some of them are simplifications to current rules. Changes include the names for permits and the allowable use of various deer permits. Deer carcass tags, tagging, and transportation requirements are modified where possible in order to simplify regulations or where needed in anticipation of a new automated licensing system. The current requirement to register deer is replaced in these rules with a more customer-friendly harvest reporting procedure using telephone or internet. Black bear are another species for which in-person registration of harvested animals is required. These rules will modify bear harvest recording requirements because deer and bear registration occur at the same locations and through the same process under current rules. These rules will eliminate deadlines to register deer and bear that currently vary by season, harvest method, and location. Instead, a simple statewide requirement to register deer and bear harvest by 5:00 p.m. of the day after is established. This allows fewer hours to register an animal than under current law but electronic registration will be significantly more convenient. Faster registration of deer will provide the department and others who are interested with very timely harvest information. The shorter deadline may also help with enforcing bag limit, tagging, transportation and possession restrictions. The option to require in-person registration of deer carcasses is preserved in areas that are part of a CWD affected area or where necessary for deer population and herd health monitoring purposes. The department could take advantage of this authority in order to collect tissue specimens for sampling for a wide variety of diseases or biometrics associated with deer populations. Finally, in order to assure hunter accountability and compliance with group bagging restrictions, these rules establish that a deer carcass possessed in the field must be accompanied by the person who tagged it. These rules maintain the restriction that deer and bear can only be "quartered" while in the field, even if they have already been registered. Both of these regulations essentially maintain current requirements because in-the-field registration of harvested deer was not possible previously. Now that deer could be registered while in the field by using a cellular phone or other electronic means, these rules will continue to require that the person who tagged the carcass accompany it during dragging or other field transport or possession by others. Deer that have been registered could be possessed and transported by other people on public highways or possessed at a residence or business, such as a taxidermist or butcher shop. These requirements will also assure sex or size of deer or bear are identifiable in the field.

Season date modifications may have the impact of opening a small number of refuges, which are established in chs. NR 11 and 15 , to additional deer hunting during the late firearm season that begins on December 24. These refuges are located primarily on department managed lands and most of them were established to provide undisturbed resting areas for migrating waterfowl. This deer hunt will occur very late in fall migration and will normally be after all waterfowl seasons are closed.

The department is recommending deer hunting season date modifications as a result of this rulemaking. The report generally recommended, "keeping seasons and bag limits consistent for longer periods of time to allow better assessment of management progress". The season date modifications in the proposal may lead to more long term stability of seasons. These rules will maintain the current season for hunting deer by archery methods. This proposal maintains the traditional Wisconsin firearm deer season opener on the Saturday before Thanksgiving and 9 day structure. The current 10 day muzzleloader season is maintained under this proposal. This proposal modifies that "holiday hunt" which has been held in the CWD management zone so that it will be antlerless only and end on January 1 instead of the Sunday nearest January 6. The holiday hunt will be expanded geographically to include entire counties where previously the hunt was held only in a portion of the county. This holiday deer hunt occurs under current rules in the CWD management zone. It has been a low-pressure event but, for some, a greatly appreciated opportunity for additional deer hunting at a time when families are together and around which some new deer hunting traditions are developing. The late firearm season, or holiday hunt, is similar to seasons offered in other adjacent states and will occur during a time of the year when more residents are traditionally taking vacation or home for the holidays as in the case of veterans. Finally, only in areas that are part of the CWD season under current rules, archery deer hunting has been allowed on the day before the traditional 9-day firearm season opens. Under this proposal, the archery deer season will be open statewide on the day before the traditional 9-day firearm season for statewide consistency.

In metropolitan deer management subunits a 19-day firearm deer hunting season has been in place and is maintained by this rule proposal.

Under current rule, numerous state parks are listed in the table that establishes deer seasons because the DNR was required to establish hunting seasons in state parks by administrative rule. Under 2011 ACT 168, hunting is allowed at state parks except where, or at times when, the Natural Resources Board has prohibited the activity in order to protect public safety or a unique plant or animal community. Because the old presumption that state parks are closed unless opened by rule has been replaced by a presumption that state parks are open unless board action has been taken to close them, most state park names have been removed from the table. Those parks will be open to deer hunting under normal statewide regulations at times when hunting has not been prohibited for safety related purposes by natural resources board order. A number of parks, which had deer hunting seasons or regulations which are not the same as the ones that apply statewide are still found in the season table in order to preserve those unique seasons or regulations. All state park deer management unit number designations have been repealed and state parks are simply referred to by their name. Current rules require that deer hunters in state parks in the CWD management zone obtain a free access permit to a park. The number of access permits is not restricted. This rule repeals that requirement because it is no longer needed considering that access to other parks will not be monitored to this extent. Finally, the deer hunt at the Loew Lake Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest, which had been a limited entry/draw hunt, will now be open to participation by any licensed hunter. However, this season will continue to be muzzleloader only. These changes are made for consistency with other changes made at state parks which previously had limited entry hunts.

The trustee's report generally recommends a more passive approach than current department policy to the management of Chronic Wasting Disease. This approach is reflected by the establishment of deer seasons in CWD affected areas that are similar to other areas of the state. Management of CWD in the state's deer herd is still important under these rules. These rules retain the firearm deer season occurring over the Christmas holiday, although it will now be an antlerless-only season and will end on January 1. There is an option to issue landowner permits for sampling or for additional harvest opportunities, and rule language that provides advice on when an October firearm season will be held if necessary in CWD affected areas. While the promulgation of emergency rules is required under s. 29.016 , Stats., before an October firearm season can be held, establishing by permanent rule when that season would occur is intended to simplify development of an emergency rule if that authority is utilized. These rules modify the current CWD zone management system by designating it as the CWD-affected area using county boundaries to describe the zone instead of the previous DMU configuration based on roads and natural features such as rivers. A process for efficiently adding new counties as CWD-affected areas when the disease is discovered in new areas is created. The department currently establishes numeric population goals for deer units that are in a CWD zone. Those goals are modified by these rules so that they are consistent with the manner in which objectives for other units are expressed.

This rulemaking establishes a deer management assistance program that will allow landowners and hunters to work together with the department to manage deer on a site-specific basis. The program will actively involve members of the public in the collection, analysis, and reporting of deer harvest information and improve management of the deer herd at the local level. The rule establishes enrollment fees for participation in the program and statute has established that revenue will be credited back to implementation of the program. This proposal establishes a separate half-price fee of $6.00 for antlerless deer hunting permits obtained through participation in the program. The lower fee is intended to be an incentive for participation. The program is a central recommendation of the report which recommended that the department establish: a) applicability to private and public lands, b) initial areas eligible to participate, c) administration of DMAP, d) funding, e) personnel and training, f) minimum property size to participate, g) fees, h) participation requirements, i) data collection requirements, j) registration of deer harvested on DMAP properties, k) data analysis and reporting, and l) assessment of DMAP effectiveness.

Chapter NR 13 is intended to regulate off-reservation treaty rights of treaty rights participants recognized by Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. Voigt, 700 F. 2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983). Modifications to Ch. NR 13 update a cross reference with Ch. NR 10 . Other out-of-date cross-references exist in this chapter but are not revised here as that might be more appropriate as a stand-alone, more thorough review. The report did not recommend changes to this chapter of administrative code.

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

The department estimates that the economic impact of these rules will be none or minimal and, pursuant to 2011 Executive Order 50 , facilitated a 14 day period for comment on a draft economic impact analysis. The comment period began on October 7 and ended on October 21, 2013. Although s. 227.14 , Stats., does not require an economic impact analysis for emergency rules, an analysis was prepared for this rule and related permanent rules and is included for informational purposes and in fulfillment of the fiscal impact analysis requirement.

This proposal modifies rules that establish the department's habitat and deer harvest management strategies. Examples of the new management efforts include: increased emphasis of habitat management on private land through the Deer Management Assistance Program, eliminating the requirement to use a specific method of measuring and estimating deer populations even though that model may still be used and considered, and new ways to describe desired deer population levels. These rules will result in moderate revisions to regulations that apply to individual deer hunters. Examples of the types of changes proposed include adjustments to deer management unit boundaries, simplified harvest registration procedures, different deer hunting regulations on private versus public lands, and different uses and changes in the availability of antlerless deer harvest permits.

Deer population, harvest, and habitat management affect many entities in this state. A broad description of affected industries includes agriculture, forestry, tourism, and retail. Governments may be impacted by these rules because many do have programs to manage nuisance deer locally. Many non-profit groups are focused on natural resource conservation, wildlife resources, or deer in particular, and may be affected by these rules.

The department anticipates there may be none or a minimal effect on the financial health of industries, governments, and groups. The department anticipates there will be no economic effects of these regulations for individual hunters and landowners.

Affected entities are likely to base their evaluations of economic impact on their opinions of whether or not the rules will result in deer population changes. For instance, agriculture and forest-products interests may benefit from low deer populations and resulting low levels of crop and tree damage. The tourism and retail industries may benefit from high deer populations that result in greater enthusiasm and participation in deer hunting. This rule package will be designed to balance competing interests with a different approach than current rules.

It is important to note that the department is statutorily prohibited from managing deer populations with regulations that require a hunter to first harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting a buck. The department also lacks rulemaking authority for certain deer hunting season frameworks. These changes to the department's regulatory authority result from recently enacted statutes and they were not considered as part of an economic analysis prepared for these rules. While deer may have significant positive or negative impacts to different entities, removal of these harvest regulations likely moderates the economic impact of this rule package.

The department anticipates that there will be no or very few implementation and compliance costs for the affected entities. These rules will not establish reporting or compliance requirements or other regulations for small business. A possible outcome of these rules is the elimination of deer registration stations at local businesses throughout the state. The department has summarized the value of registration fees paid by the department to businesses, and related impacts of this voluntary program, in the economic impact analysis.

This is not a complete estimate of economic impacts but, rather, a summary which indicates that these rules could have none or minimal economic effects. The final economic analysis for these rules includes a description of the specific impacts of deer and deer hunting in this state based on surveys and research done by the department and other state and federal agencies. However, even though significant research exists, the impact of wild deer on the environment and to people under various conditions cannot be anticipated with exact precision. The final analysis includes significant narrative descriptions of anticipated economic impacts.

Impact on Small Business

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 [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a 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.

Contact Person

Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Phone: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail] .

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—

CR 14-025

(DNR# ER-30-13 )

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 227.16 and 227.17 , Stats., the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on amendments to sections NR 10.02 , 16.12 , 16.13 , 19.275 , 21.13 , and 22.13 and Chapter NR 27 , relating to the addition of the Blanding's turtle to the State's Protected Wild Animal list, possession exemptions, and turtle seasons and limits and to updating scientific and common names and federal listing status on the date(s) and at the time(s) and location(s) listed below.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date:   Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Time:   11:00 a.m.
Location:   Wisconsin Natural Resources Building
  101 S. Webster St.
  Room 613
  Madison, WI 53707

There will be Live Meeting availability for those who are unable to attend in person. To request a Live Meeting link, please contact Terrell Hyde at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Terrell Hyde, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation, 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53707-7921; by E-mail to [e-mail] or by calling [phone]. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Availability of the p roposed r ules and f iscal e stimate

The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/Home . If you do not have Internet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Terrell Hyde, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation, 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53707-7921, or by calling [phone].

Submitting Comments

Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before April 2, 2014. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to:

Terrell Hyde

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation

101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53707-7921

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Internet: https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/Home search "ER-30-13"

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statutory authority, statutes interpreted and explanation

Statutes that authorize the promulgation of these rules are: ss. 29.011 , 29.014 , 29.039 , and 29.604 , Stats. These statutes establish management authority with the department, provide that the title to wild animals is vested with the state, and provide the department with authority to maintain open and closed seasons and other regulations and programs to conserve game and nongame species. Section 29.604 (3) (b) , Stats., has been interpreted as allowing the department the authority to create and amend the list of Wisconsin's endangered and threatened species, s. NR 27.03 , Wis. Admin. Code. All rules promulgated under this authority are subject to review under ch. 227 , Stats.

Related statutes or rules

Existing policies relevant to the rule are Wisconsin Adm. Codes, Chapter NR 27 and sections NR 10.02 , 16.12 , 16.13 , 19.275 , 21.13 , and 22.13 . No new policies are being proposed.

The department is also promulgating a corresponding emergency rule (ER-31-13 (E)). The emergency and permanent rules both contemplate the following changes: add Blanding's turtle to the list of Wild Protected Animals (s. NR 10.02 ); add Blanding's turtles to the Captive Wildlife — Reptile and Amphibian Possession Exemptions (s. NR 16.12 (3) ( b)); and add Blanding's turtles to the turtle season/limits with a season/limit of none/zero on ss. NR 19.275 (4) , 21.13 (4) , and 22.13 (4) . The permanent rule only will also contemplate performing housekeeping on scientific and common names, and Federal Protection Status on administrative rules ss. NR 10.02 , 16.12 , 16.13 , 19.275 , 21.13 , and 22.13 and ch. NR 27 , and other related rules listing native plant and animal species.

Plain language analysis

The objective of this proposed rule is to protect Blanding's turtles from the threat of harvest and collection once they are removed from the Wisconsin Threatened species list. The Blanding's turtle was delisted on January 1, 2014 per administrative rule ER-27-11. This emergency and permanent rule is a follow-up action that was proposed during the public comment for ER-27-11. As stated by the Department in the final adopted rule order for ER-27-11, that while the Blanding's turtle no longer meets the scientific criteria for listing as Threatened, the population is vulnerable to harvest and collection and should be added to the Protected Wild Animal list (s. NR 10.02 ) and harvest/collection limits.

SECTIONS 1, 3, 5, and 11-32 update scientific, common, and family names. These changes reflect current understanding of the scientific community and include mostly placement of species into a different Genus or taxonomic group. Several discrepancies in spelling and missing common names are also corrected. All of these taxa are still regarded as valid species.

SECTIONS 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 add the Blanding's turtle to the list of Wild Protected Animals, Captive Wildlife Exemptions, and to the turtle season's and limits in Wisconsin's waters to protect them from harvest and collection.

SECTIONS 9 and 10 replace the list of endangered and threatened U.S. foreign and native species with a link to the latest publication as published in the Government Printing Office's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 eCFR 17.11 and 17.12. This "adoption by reference" meets the expectation set by Wis. Stats. 29.604 (3) (b) to establish the list of wild animals and wild plants on the U.S. list of endangered and threatened foreign species; wild animals and wild plants on the U.S. list of endangered and threatened native species. The U.S. list is updated daily and is found on the US Fish and Wildlife Services' endangered species web page ( http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ ).

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

There are no federal regulations that would be in conflict with this proposed action. Blanding's turtles are not federally listed. In 2013, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed addition of the Blanding's turtle to The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) list: http://www.fws.gov/international/cites/cop16/blandings-turtle.html .

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

There are similar possession laws in adjacent other states. The Blanding's turtle is state protected in Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. In Michigan, Blanding's turtles shall not be taken or possessed except as authorized by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources.

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

Since 1979, when the Blanding's turtle was added to the threatened list, there has not been a pet or food trade industry for this species in the state. However, as a result of delisting, the Blanding's turtle is subject to turtle harvest regulations as all turtles not listed as threatened or endangered in ch. NR 27 or otherwise specified have a 135-day open season between July 15 and November 30 where the public may capture and possess up to 5 individuals.

Internationally there is concern for this species because of the increasing trend in the pet trade and commercial collecting. Regionally the Blanding's turtle is state protected in Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. In Michigan, Blanding's turtles cannot be taken or possessed except as authorized by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources.

As stated by the Department in the final adopted rule order for ER-27-11, that while the Blanding's turtle no longer meets the scientific criteria for listing as Threatened, the population is vulnerable to harvest and collection and should be added to the Protected Wild Animal list (s. NR 10.02 ) and harvest/collection limits.

These proposed rule changes were developed with the assistance of the Bureaus of Natural Heritage Conservation, Fisheries Management, Wildlife Management, and Legal Services.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact report

Pursuant to s. 227.137 , Wis. Stats., the department is required to solicit comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule. Small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) , Wis. Stats., were be asked to identify themselves as a small business in their comments. No comments were received in the 2-week comment period between January 22 and February 5, 2014.

The department anticipates minimal economic impact, with few entities affected as collection and possession limits will not change. Interested parties may include individuals using turtles as bait or food, and parties interested in developing a pet/food trade for the Blanding's turtle in Wisconsin.

Effect on Small Business (Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)

Pursuant to s. 227.137 , Wis. Stats., the department is required to solicit comments on the economic impact of proposed rule. Small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) , Wis. Stats., were asked to identify themselves as a small business in their comments. No comments were received in the 2-week EIA comment period held between January 22 and February 5, 2014. The Department's email distribution list will be submitted to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Compliance. The EIA does not indicate that the proposed rule is reasonably expected to have a total impact of $20,000,000 in implementation and compliance costs.

The department will submit the rule package and economic impact analysis to the Wisconsin Legislative Council under s. 227.15 , Wis. Stats., and hearings on the proposed rule will be held by the department after proper notice in accordance with ss. 227.17 and 227.18 , Wis. Stats. A small business regulatory flexibility analysis that contains the provisions in s. 227.19 (3) (e) , Stats., will be included in the final rule order.

The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] , or by calling [phone].

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150 , Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate Summary

These proposed rules do not establish any requirements on businesses or local units of government.

The department anticipates minimal economic impact as the proposed rule changes will continue similar possession and collection limits that the Blanding's turtle received under the protections afforded to the species on Wisconsin's Threatened species list. The Blanding's turtle was added to the Threatened species list in 1979. As such, there has not been a market for its collection and possession since then. No changes to the permitting process for researchers and rehabilitators are expected as part of this proposed rule change.

Agency Contact Persons

Terrell Hyde, [phone], terrell.hyde@wisconsin. gov or Erin Crain, [phone], [e-mail] . Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Conservation NH/6, Madison, WI 53707-7921.

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
This rule modifies Ch.'s NR 10 related to the list of Wild Protected Animals, NR 16 related to Captive Wildlife – Reptile and Amphibian Possession Exemptions, NR 27 related to the list of US and Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened species, and Ch.'s NR 19, NR 21, and NR 22 related to turtle seasons and limits.
3. Subject
Preliminary economic impact analysis for public comment relating to adding Blanding's turtles (Emyoidea blandingi) to the list of Wild Protected Animals, and eliminating harvest and collection through the Department's list of turtle seasons and limits and captive wildlife exemptions.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ 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
The objective of this proposed rule is to protect Blanding's turtles from the threat of harvest and collection since they were removed from the Wisconsin Threatened species list. The Blanding's turtle was delisted on January 1, 2014 per administrative rule ER-27-11. This emergency and permanent rule is a follow-up action that was proposed during the public comment for ER-27-11. As stated by the Department in the final adopted rule order for ER-27-11, that while the Blanding's turtle no longer meets the scientific criteria for listing as Threatened, the population is vulnerable to harvest and collection and should be added to the Protected Wild Animal list (NR 10.02) and harvest/collection limits. Since 1979, when the Blanding's turtle was added to the threatened list, there has not been a pet or food trade industry for this species in the state. However, as a result of delisting, the Blanding's turtle is subject to turtle harvest regulations as all turtles not listed as threatened or endangered in NR 27 or otherwise specified have a 135-day open season between July 15 and November 30 where the public may capture and possess up to 5 individuals. Internationally there is concern for this species because of the increasing trend in the pet trade and commercial collecting. Regionally the Blanding's turtle is state protected in Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. In Michigan, Blanding's turtles cannot be taken or possessed except as authorized by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources. The proposed rule changes will continue similar possession and collection limits that the Blanding's turtle received on the State's Threatened list. As such, minimal controversy is anticipated.
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.
Pursuant to s. 227.137, Wis. Stats., the department was required to solicit comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule. Small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114(1), Wis. Stats., were asked to identify themselves as a small business in their comments. The 2-week EIA comment period was between January 22 and February 5, 2014. No comments were received. The department anticipates minimal economic impact, with few entities affected as collection and possession limits will not change. Interested parties may include individuals using turtles as bait or food, and parties interested in developing a pet/food trade for the Blanding's turtle in Wisconsin.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Pursuant to s. 227.137 Wis. Stats., the department is required to solicit comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule, and if requested to coordinate with local governments in the preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). No comments or requests to coordinate were received.
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 department anticipates minimal economic impact as the proposed rule changes will continue similar possession and collection limits that the Blanding's turtle received under the protections afforded to the species on Wisconsin's Threatened species list. The Blanding's turtle was added to the Threatened species list in 1979. As such, there has not been a market for its collection and possession since then. No changes to the permitting process for researchers and rehabilitators are expected as part of this proposed rule change. As part of the administrative rule ER-27-11, researchers will need to apply for a Scientific Collectors Permit or Research License Authorization to collect or possess a Blanding's turtle instead of an Endangered and Threatened Species Permit. The effect of this proposed rule will be minimal with few entities affected as collection and possession limits will not change. Interested parties may include individuals using turtles as bait or food, and parties interested in developing a Blanding's turtle pet/food trade in the state. These proposed rules do not establish any requirements on businesses or local units of government.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The objective of this rule is to protect Blanding's turtles from the threat of harvest and collection since they were removed from the Wisconsin Threatened species list. Given the population-age structure of the species, the impact of collection may be severe enough to place the Blanding's turtle's long term survival in the state in jeopardy, causing the species to be considered for addition back to the state's endangered and threatened species list. The proposed rule changes will continue similar possession and collection limits that the Blanding's turtle received on the State's Threatened list. As such, minimal controversy is anticipated.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implications of this rule proposal will be the same as the short term implications in protecting the Blanding's turtle from the threat of harvest and collection and keeping them off the Wisconsin Threatened species list. These rule proposals will continue harvest and collection limits that the Blanding's turtle received while listed on the State's Threatened species list.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There are no federal regulations that would be in conflict with the proposed rule changes. The proposed changes would support the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed addition of the Blanding's turtle to The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) list: http://www.fws.gov/international/cites/cop16/blandings-turtle.html.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
There are similar laws in other states. The Blanding's turtle is state protected in Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. In Michigan, Blanding's turtles shall not be taken or possessed except as authorized by the Director of the Department of Natural Resources.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Terrell Hyde				608-264-9255

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

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Pharmacy Examining Board

CR 14-023

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Pharmacy Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 450.02 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting sections 450.035 and 450.085, Wis. Stats., the Pharmacy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend sections Phar 1.02 (7) , 7.10 , and 16.03 , relating to council and exam names.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date:   Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Time:   9:00 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  (Enter at 55 North Dickinson Street)
  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 Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8366, 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, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail] . Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on March 26, 2014 , 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, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at [e-mail] .

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Sections 450.035 and 450.085 , Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 450.02 (2) , Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

The board has authority to promulgate rules for the guidance of the profession and to interpret the provisions of the statutes it enforces. The board shall adopt rules defining the active practice of pharmacy.

Related statute or rule

None

Plain language analysis

Section 1 capitalizes the proper name of the examination.

Sections 2 and 3 correct the name of the organization which approves the course of study to Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as amended in the statutes by 2013 Act 124 . In addition, Section 3 removes the qualification of "pharmacist" for attendance and deletes in the note the reference to a list of board approved programs which is no longer compiled.

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

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: Illinois administrative code references the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination.

Iowa: Iowa administrative code references the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination.

Michigan: Michigan administrative code references the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination.

Minnesota: Minnesota administrative code references the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The rule reflects the statutory change due to 2013 Act 124 .

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

The rule was posted for economic impact comments for 14 days and none received.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) , Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail] , or by calling [phone].

Agency Contact Person

Sharon Henes, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [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
Phar 1, 7, 16
3. Subject
Council and exam name
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 ⍽ 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 corrects the names of the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination and Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education.
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.
None
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
The benefit is to refer to both the exam and education council by their correct proper names.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The benefit is to refer to both the exam and education council by their correct proper names.
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 neighboring states reference the North American Pharmacy Licensing Examination and Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sharon Henes				[phone]

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