Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 706, 10/14/2014

Rule-Making Notices

Notice of Hearings

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

EmR1424

The state of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold a public hearing on its emergency rule, section ATCP 21.17, Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the quarantine of Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties for the emerald ash borer beetle.

DATCP will hold a public hearing at the time and place shown below.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, October 27, 2014
Time:   1:00 p.m.
Location:   Department of Agriculture, Trade and
  Consumer Protection
  Conference Room 211 (2nd floor)
  2811 Agriculture Drive
  Madison, WI 53718

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by October 22, 2014, by writing to Barbara Stalker, at the address above, or by telephone [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at [phone]. The hearing facility is accessible to disabled users.

Appearances at the Hearing, Submission of Written Comments, and Copies of the Rule

DATCP invites the public to attend the hearing and comment on the emergency rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until Monday, November 10, 2014, for additional written comments. Comments may be mailed to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708, emailed to [e-mail], or submitted online at http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov.

You may obtain a free copy of this emergency rule by mailing at request to the address above. You can also obtain a copy by calling [phone], or by emailing your request to [e-mail]. Copies will also be available at the hearing. To view the emergency rule online, please go to: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

To provide comments or concerns relating to small business, please contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator, Keeley Moll, at the address above, or by emailing to [e-mail] or by telephone at [phone].

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

This emergency rule creates quarantines for Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties for the emerald ash borer beetle (“EAB"). Under this rule, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") quarantines Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties to mitigate the risk of movement of emerald ash borer to other areas of Wisconsin and to other states.

DATCP is adopting this temporary emergency rule pending the adoption of a federal regulation to quarantine Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties. This emergency rule will take effect immediately upon publication in the official state newspaper, and will remain in effect for 150 days. The Legislature's Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules may extend the emergency rule for up to 120 additional days.

Statutes interpreted

Sections 93.07 (12) and 94.01, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 93.07 (1), 93.07 (12), 94.01, and 227.24, Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

DATCP has broad general authority, under s. 93.07 (1), Stats., to adopt regulations to enforce laws under its jurisdiction. DATCP also has broad general authority under ss. 93.07 (12) and 94.01, Stats., to adopt regulations to prevent and control plant pest infestations. Emerald ash borer quarantines created by this rule are part of an overall state strategy to prevent and control plant pest infestations, including EAB infestations. DATCP is adopting this temporary emergency rule under authority of s. 227.24, Stats., pending the adoption of federal regulations on the same subject.

Background

The United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS") positively identified EAB in the village of Fish Creek, Door County on June 10, 2014. EAB was also identified in the city of Sturgeon Bay on June 19, 2014. APHIS subsequently identified EAB in Nelson Dewey State Park, Grant County, and in the Village of Oakdale, Monroe County, on July 11, 2014. On July 17, 2014, APHIS identified EAB in the Town of Lodi, Columbia County. While EAB has not yet been positively identified in the southwestern contiguous counties of Richland, Iowa, Lafayette and Green, these four counties are now completely surrounded by the current state and federal EAB quarantine. It is very likely that these counties already contain some level of EAB infestation, and there is little economic or ecological benefit to keeping them out of the quarantine.

This emergency rule creates a DATCP quarantine for Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe and Richland Counties. A Federal quarantine will be enacted approximately six to eight weeks after a formal submission by the state plant regulatory official. EAB is carried and spread by untreated ash wood products. An eight-week delay until enactment of the federal quarantine leaves too much time for businesses or individuals to move potentially EAB infested material out of these eight counties to areas of Wisconsin or other states that are not infested with EAB.

EAB is an injurious exotic pest that now endangers Wisconsin's 750 million ash trees and ash resources. This insect has the potential to destroy entire stands of ash, and any incursion of EAB can result in substantial losses both to forest ecosystems and to urban trees, as well as the state's vital tourism and timber industries. The emerald ash borer has killed over fifty million trees in the Midwest and has cost several hundred million dollars in losses to the woodlot, nursery, landscape industries and municipalities. APHIS predicts the national urban impact alone from this pest may exceed $370 billion.

DATCP has plant inspection and pest control authority under s. 94.01, Stats., to adopt rules establishing quarantines or other restrictions on the importation or movement of plants or other materials into and within this state, if these measures are necessary to prevent or control the spread of injurious plant pests. A quarantine order may prohibit the movement of any pest, or any plant, pest host or pest-harboring material, which may transmit or harbor a pest.

Emergency Rule Content

Under this emergency rule, movement of all hardwood (non-coniferous) firewood of any type, plus movement of any ash wood out of Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties, is prohibited with certain exceptions. The emergency rule will do the following:

•   Create a quarantine for EAB for Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties that prohibits the movement of all hardwood species of firewood, nursery stock, green lumber, and other material living, dead, cut or fallen, including logs, stumps, roots, branches, and composted and uncomposted chips of the genus Fraxinus (Ash wood), out of these counties or any contiguous EAB quarantined counties.

•   Provide an exemption for items that have been inspected and certified by a pest control official and are accompanied by a written certificate issued by the pest control official (some products, such as nursery stock, cannot be given an exemption).

•   Provide an exemption for businesses that enter into a state or federal compliance agreement. The compliance agreement describes in detail what a company can and cannot do with regulated articles.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Data for this analysis was obtained from DATCP nursery license records, local business directories and field surveys of the wood products industry (e.g. timber, lumber, firewood) in the area. This analysis was based on the regulatory language of ATCP 21.17 and 7 CFR 301.53, on the observations of DATCP nursery inspectors, and on conversations with stakeholders in the nursery and other timber-related industries.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business

DATCP searched its nursery license database to obtain current records for licensed nursery growers operating in Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe and Richland Counties. Based on previous and ongoing work with Wisconsin's Gypsy Moth and firewood certification programs, DATCP staff also identified known saw mills, wood products companies and firewood industry concerns. Finally, online Yellow Pages business listings were also searched to find related tree nursery, timber, firewood and tree service companies.

Business Impact

This emergency rule may have an impact on persons or companies that deal in any hardwood firewood or ash materials in Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties. The affected businesses are all small businesses. This emergency rule restricts the sale or distribution of ash trees, ash wood products, and any hardwood firewood from Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties to locations outside of these counties or any contiguously quarantined counties.

The business impact of this emergency rule depends on the number of 1) nurseries that sell or distribute ash nursery stock outside these counties, 2) firewood producers/dealers that sell or distribute outside these counties, 3) sawmills that move untreated ash stock (green lumber) outside these counties, and 4) untreated wood waste (e.g. ash brush, chips or mulch) that is moved outside these counties.

Columbia, Door, Grant, Green, Iowa, Lafayette, Monroe, and Richland Counties have a total of 48 licensed nursery growers that could possibly be growing ash nursery stock. Those growers will not be able to move or sell ash nursery stock outside of the quarantine area, though discussions with the Wisconsin Nursery Association indicate that few, if any, nurseries continue to sell ash trees. There are also an estimated 66 known firewood producers or dealers in these eight counties. Firewood dealers would need to be certified under s. ATCP 21.20, Wis. Admin. Code, to sell or move firewood outside of the quarantine area. To obtain certification, an inspected firewood dealer pays a $50 annual fee to DATCP and treats the firewood in a manner that ensures it is free of EAB. There are 41 known lumber mills in these eight counties and an estimated 48 other tree service/wood processing facilities that may also deal with ash. To transport ash wood products outside of the quarantine area, they will have to enter into a compliance agreement with DATCP or APHIS that authorizes movement of ash products outside of the quarantine only when there is assurance that the movement will not spread EAB to non-quarantined locations. Certification and compliance agreements will require some additional recordkeeping on the part of those businesses.

Environmental impact

This emergency rule will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Federal and surrounding state programs

Federal programs

Under the federal Plant Protection Act, APHIS has responsibility for excluding, eradicating and controlling serious plant pests, including EAB. APHIS has instituted statewide quarantines on the movement of all ash wood for Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia ,and West Virginia, in addition to portions of Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. APHIS has also enacted quarantines for Brown, Kenosha, Racine, Walworth, Rock, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Jefferson, Dane, Ozaukee, Washington, Dodge, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Winnebago, Trempealeau, La Crosse, Vernon, Sauk, Crawford, and Douglas Counties in Wisconsin. The quarantines include restrictions on the movement of any hardwood (non-coniferous) firewood.

Surrounding state programs

Surrounding states where EAB has been identified (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan) have state and federal quarantines that prohibit the movement of regulated articles out of quarantined areas. A regulated article can only move out of quarantined areas after it is certified by USDA or state officials.

DATCP Contact

Questions and comments (including hearing comments) related to this rule may be directed to:

Brian Kuhn or Christopher Deegan

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: [phone] or [phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Notice of Hearings

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

EmR1418, EmR1419

(DNR #s WM-11-14(E) and WM-04-14(E))

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014, 29.041 and 227.11 (2) (a), and 227.24, Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014, 29.041 and 29.192, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the 2014 migratory game bird seasons and hunting regulations. Emergency rule order WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting took effect upon publication in the official state paper on September 1, 2014. Emergency order WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations took effect upon publication in the official state paper on September 11, 2014.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Time:   1:00 p.m.
Location:   Natural Resources State Office Building
  (GEF-2)
  Room 608
  101 South Webster Street
  Madison, Wisconsin

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 Proposed Rule and Submission of Written Comments

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. 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]. Comments may be submitted until October 29, 2014. 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.

Board Order WM-11-14(E) Related to Teal and Mourning Dove Hunting Seasons

Plain language analysis of WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

Section 1 of this rule order establishes a seven day season beginning on September 1 and a six bird daily bag limit for a new, teal-only hunt. The teal-only season will occur prior to the youth duck season and the normal season for hunting all varieties of ducks.

Section 2 extends the mourning dove hunting season from the current 70 to 90 days.

Sections 3 and 4 establish that the hunting hours for teal during the teal-only season shall begin at 9:00 a.m. on the first day and sunrise on following days. Hunting will end at 7:00 p.m. each day. The hunting hours for other migratory birds such as mourning doves or Canada geese are not modified by these rules.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations for WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

Under international treaty and Federal law, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations process. As part of the Federal rule process, the USFWS proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Under this harvest-management objective, the relative importance of hunting opportunity increases as duck populations approach the goals in the NAWMP. Thus, hunting opportunity would be maximized when the population is at or above goals.

The proposed modifications included in this rule order are consistent with these parameters and guidelines which are annually established by the USFWS in 50 CFR 20.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states for WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

Since migratory bird species are managed under federal law, each region of the country is organized in a specific geographic flyway which represents an individual migratory population of migratory game birds. Wisconsin along with Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and Iowa are members of the Mississippi Flyway. Each year the states included in the flyways meet to discuss regulations and guidelines offered to the flyways by the USFWS. The USFWS regulations and guidelines apply to all states within the Flyway and therefore the regulations in the adjoining states closely resemble the rules established in this rule order, and only differ slightly based on hunter desires, habitat and population management goals. However, these variations fall within guidelines and sideboards established by the USFWS.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies for WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

The department annually promulgates emergency rules establishing the same year's migratory bird hunting regulations. The emergency rule is necessary because migratory game bird hunting is regulated by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service which offers a final season framework to Wisconsin within months of the possible opening days each year. This timeframe does not allow for promulgation of a permanent rule prior to the hunting season. The department has promulgated permanent rules in the past so that information related to zones, tagging requirements for geese, and other regulations remain relatively current. However, season dates and bag limits established in the administrative code reflect the prior season frameworks and the permanent rule often does not contain current information.

The species of primary interest to duck hunters, blue-winged teal, are an early migrating bird whose numbers may be low or declining in Wisconsin when the normal duck seasons begin at the end of September or early October. Many hunters are likely to appreciate the opportunity to hunt this species earlier during the fall season, possibly prior to migration, when they may be more abundant.

In the 1960s the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) allowed states to experiment with an early duck season that offered additional duck hunting days outside of the regular duck season framework. Hunters were restricted to shooting only teal; blue-winged and green-winged teal; but the focus in the Mississippi Flyway was primarily the early migrating blue-winged teal. This “experimental season" was intended to measure whether hunters could successfully distinguish between duck species and what the impact was on non-teal ducks. The results were mixed and after debate among state and federal agencies involved, the decision was made that the “production" states (WI, MN, MI, and IA) within the Mississippi Flyway would not be allowed an early teal season. However, when blue-winged teal seasons were high, “nonproduction" states would be offered an operational early teal season. “Production" refers primarily to whether a state is a major breeding area for mallards and other ducks.

The continental population of blue-winged teal has grown in recent years and a harvest assessment concluded that teal could sustain higher harvest beyond that incurred during the regular duck season and the existing early teal seasons. Following a series of meetings and recommendations among states and the USFWS, it was decided that the 4 production states would be offered a 3 year experimental teal season. It is very important to understand that this is an experimental season and that the results of the experiment will determine if a state is granted an operational early teal season. The USFWS requires states to observe hunter behavior in the field to observe whether they shoot at non-teal ducks during the teal only season. If the number of attempts to shoot non-teal ducks is too high then we will fail the experiment.

Based on the public input and staff analyses, the department proposes an early teal season in Wisconsin for 2014 that would begin on September 1 and continue through September 7. Only blue-winged and green-winged teal can be harvested. The daily bag limit would be 6 teal. Shooting hours on opening day begin at 9 am and close at 7 pm. Shooting hours from September 2 through 7 will begin at sunrise and close at 7 pm.

This rule would also extend the mourning dove hunting season. At the February, 2014 meeting of about 20 states that are part of the Eastern Dove Management Unit, a recommendation was approved to increase the dove hunting season from 70 to 90 days across the management unit. The additional 20 days will result in an increase in hunting opportunity that some hunters will appreciate. However, these days will be at a time of the year when many other hunting seasons are also open. As a result, the additional hunting opportunity may not result in a significant amount of hunting effort focused primarily on mourning doves.

Anticipated private sector costs for WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on small business for WM-11-14(E) related to teal and mourning dove hunting seasons

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under s. 227.24 (3m), Stats.

Board Order WM-04-14(E) Related to Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

Plain language analysis of WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

This emergency rule order will modify regulations for migratory bird hunting during the 2014 seasons.

Section 1 of these rules reduces the daily bag limit for canvasback ducks from two birds to one.

Sections 2 and 3 increase the season harvest limit for Canada geese in the Horicon Zone from six birds to twelve. The daily bag limit will be unchanged and continues to be two birds.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations for WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

Under international treaty and Federal law, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations process. As part of the Federal rule process, the USFWS proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Under this harvest-management objective, the relative importance of hunting opportunity increases as duck populations approach the goals in the NAWMP. Thus, hunting opportunity would be maximized when the population is at or above goals.

Wisconsin Canada goose harvest is supported by two different Canada goose populations; the local giant Canada geese which are part of the Temperate Breeding Population (TBP) of the Mississippi Flyway provide about 40% of our fall harvest while the Mississippi Valley Population (MVP) that breeds in northern Ontario provide about 60% of the fall harvest. These two populations are managed under cooperative management plans developed by several states and provinces. The TBP population has steadily grown and management goals are to provide additional harvest opportunity and control population growth. In contrast, the MVP population has been on a slow decline so management objectives are to maintain a lower rate of harvest and have a stable or increasing population.

The proposed modifications included in this rule order are consistent with these parameters and guidelines which are annually established by the USFWS in 50 CFR 20.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states for WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

Since migratory bird species are managed under international treaty, each region of the country is organized in a specific geographic flyway which represents an individual migratory population of migratory game birds. Wisconsin along with Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa are members of the Mississippi Flyway. Each year the states included in the flyways meet to discuss regulations and guidelines offered to the flyways by the USFWS. The USFWS regulations and guidelines apply to all states within the Flyway and therefore the regulations in the adjoining states closely resemble the rules established in this rule order, and only differ slightly based on hunter desires, habitat and population management goals. However, these variations fall within guidelines and sideboards established by the USFWS.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies for WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

The department annually promulgates an emergency rule establishing the same year's migratory bird hunting regulations. The emergency rule is necessary because migratory game bird hunting is regulated by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service which offers a final season framework to Wisconsin on approximately August 1 each year. This timeframe does not allow for promulgation of a permanent rule prior to the hunting season.

For the regular duck season, a data based process called Adaptive Harvest Management is used annually by the USFWS and the Flyways to determine which of 3 framework alternatives best matches the current year's data on populations and habitat (data from the spring pond and duck survey). The option of a closed season is also possible if survey conditions indicated that this is necessary for the management of duck populations. The determination of which alternative is selected is based in part on the spring wetland conditions on the breeding grounds and the Mid-Continent Mallard population. These data come from the May Pond and Breeding Waterfowl Population Surveys conducted by the USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service on traditional survey areas as well as surveys from select states, including Wisconsin. In addition, harvest strategies have been developed to inform hunting season decisions for other individual duck species such as scaup, canvasback and pintail which could drive annual changes in bag limits or season lengths for those species.

The parameters of Wisconsin's regular goose seasons are guided by the Mississippi Flyway management plans for the MVP and TBP Canada goose populations and approved by the Mississippi Flyway Council and the USFWS. The health of these populations is measured with spring breeding population surveys, survival data and harvest rates obtained from banding and production studies. The surveys and studies are conducted annually and are supported by the State of Wisconsin as part of the MFC. The primary elements of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulatory process include conducting spring waterfowl surveys, participation in MFC meetings, commenting on federal proposals, and soliciting input from the public. The state process begins with Flyway meetings in February and March each year where staff provide input to the development of federal framework alternatives and requests related to the early seasons. In spring and summer, breeding waterfowl surveys and banding are conducted in support of the regulatory process.

In early July each year, staff conduct a public meeting to solicit input from interest groups, including representatives of the Conservation Congress Migratory Committee. At this meeting, staff provide the attendees with breeding status information and ask for any items that they wish the department to pursue at the MFC meeting in mid July. Department staff then attend the MFC Technical and Council meetings. At these meetings, staff are provided status information and the proposed framework alternative from the USFWS. Department staff work with the other states in our Flyway to discuss and develop proposals and recommendations that are voted upon by the MFC. Proposals that passed at the MFC meeting are forwarded to the USFWS for consideration by the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) at their meeting. The USFWS announces its final waterfowl season framework recommendation at the end of July. Department staff then summarize waterfowl status and regulation information for Wisconsin citizens and present this information to the Migratory Committee of the Conservation Congress and at a public meeting (Post-Flyway Meeting) of interest groups and individuals in early August. Staff gather public input and citizen suggestions at those meetings for the development of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulations, given the federal framework. In 2014, public hearings were held from August 4-7 around the state to solicit additional input on the proposed annual waterfowl rule.

Anticipated private sector costs for WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on small business for WM-04-14(E) related to migratory bird hunting regulations

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under s. 227.24 (3m), Stats.

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, [e-mail].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. NR 10, Game and Hunting. Board Order WM-11-14(E)
Subject
Establishing an early duck season for teal-only and the hunting regulations for teal and mourning doves.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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 Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The species of primary interest to duck hunters, blue-winged teal, are an early migrating bird whose numbers may be low or declining in Wisconsin when the normal duck seasons begin at the end of September or early October. Many hunters are likely to appreciate the opportunity to hunt this species earlier during the fall season, possibly prior to migration out-of-the-state, when they may be more abundant. The department proposes an early teal season in Wisconsin for 2014 that would begin on September 1 and continue through September 7. Only blue-winged and green-winged teal can be harvested. The daily bag limit would be 6 teal. Shooting hours on opening day begin at 9 am and close at 7 pm. Shooting hours from September 2 through 7 will begin at sunrise and close at 7 pm. This rule would also extend the mourning dove hunting season. At the February, 2014 meeting of about 20 states that are part of the Eastern Dove Management Unit, a recommendation was approved to increase the dove hunting season from 70 to 90 days across the management unit. The additional 20 days will result in an increase in hunting opportunity that some hunters will appreciate. However, these days will be at a time of the year when many other hunting seasons are also open. As a result, the additional hunting opportunity may not result in a significant amount of hunting effort focused primarily on mourning doves.
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)
Because these are emergency rules the department is not required to offer a comment period on this economic analysis. The department will hold a comment period pursuant to Governor's Executive Order 50, Section IV, when permanent rules are promulgated. Fiscal impacts on the department are also summarized in this analysis. Economic Impact A September season for hunting teal-only will be a new opportunity for Wisconsin hunters and it will result in an increase in the richness and diversity of hunting activities that people enjoy. It is likely to result in an increase in the amount of hunting activity that occurs at this time of year and the resulting incidental expenditures of hunters. However, the amount of increased activity may be limited and cannot accurately be anticipated prior to having experience with this new opportunity. A factor that may result in none or a very limited economic impact is that the hunting season for other migratory birds, Canada geese and mourning doves, are already established and will be open concurrently with the proposed teal season. Early September is considered the best time for hunting mourning doves. A certain amount of hunting during the early teal-only season may be by hunters who would otherwise have been hunting doves or geese and this teal hunting would not be considered new activity or related spending. The additional 20 days of mourning dove hunting proposed in these rules will result in an increase in hunting opportunity that some hunters will appreciate. However, these days will be at a time of the year when many other highly anticipated hunting seasons are also open. As a result, the additional hunting opportunity may not result in a significant amount of hunting effort focused primarily on mourning doves, nor related expenditures by hunters or resulting economic impacts. Both dove and teal hunters are likely to be people who already participate in those activities during the existing seasons. Dove and teal hunters are not likely to need to purchase new gear or durable goods such as boats, shotguns, or decoys. Because the hunting season frameworks proposed in this rule will be comparable to those in place during previous seasons, no economic impacts are anticipated. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Fiscal Impact The department anticipates no fiscal impact resulting from these rules. The USFWS does require states to observe hunter behavior in the field to observe whether they shoot at non-teal ducks during the teal only season. If the number of attempts to shoot non-teal ducks is too high then we will fail the experiment. The department anticipates that these observation efforts can be absorbed within the department's current budget. Though an undetermined amount of staff time will be needed to meet this federal requirement, this staff time will be accounted for by re-prioritizing work duties. The department will not hire new employees or be requiring additional hours of work. Other regulations modified by this proposal will not require significant changes to past practices or procedures and will also have no fiscal impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The species of primary interest to duck hunters, blue-winged teal, are an early migrating bird whose numbers may be low or declining in Wisconsin when the normal duck seasons begin at the end of September or early October. Many hunters are likely to appreciate the opportunity to hunt this species earlier during the fall season, possibly prior to migration, when they may be more abundant. The new teal and dove hunting opportunities will both contribute to the presence of excellent hunting opportunities which are enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts. Additional alternatives which were evaluated in preparation of these rules were to adopt a full 16 day season, which is an option offered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and to decline to hold a season. This seven day season represents a compromise between two opinions commonly expressed during public participation in rule development; that Wisconsin should take full advantage of new hunting opportunities, and that Wisconsin should not hold and early teal season because it could result in incidental harvest of other duck species or have an impact on duck hunting which occurs later in the fall season.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Implementing these rules will have little impact on the public except that they will continue to have good hunting opportunities into the future.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Annually the department establishes migratory game bird hunting seasons based on a federal framework that is presented to Wisconsin by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. This proposal takes advantage of the new opportunities offered under the federal framework but the seven day teal-only season does represent a compromise between people who are opposed to a teal season and those who would prefer the full 16 day season.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The department establishes migratory game bird hunting seasons based on a federal framework that is presented to Wisconsin by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Because of the federal guidelines, Wisconsin's regulations are similar to those in neighboring states.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. NR 10, Game and Hunting. Board Order WM-04-14 (E)
Subject
Establishing the 2014 migratory game bird hunting regulations.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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 Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This emergency rule order will modify regulations for migratory bird hunting during the 2014 seasons.
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)
Economic Impact Because the hunting season frameworks proposed in this rule will be comparable or identical to those in place during previous seasons, no economic impacts are anticipated. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Fiscal Impact Regulations modified by this proposal will not require changes to past practices or procedures and will have no fiscal impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The federal government and state legislature have delegated to the appropriate agencies rule-making authority to control the hunting of migratory birds. The State of Wisconsin must comply with federal regulations in the establishment of migratory bird hunting seasons and conditions. Federal regulations are not made available to this state until late July of each year. This order is designed to bring the state hunting regulations into conformity with the federal regulations. Failure to modify our rules will result in the failure to provide hunting opportunity and continuation of rules which conflict with federal regulations.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
These are emergency rules that will be in effect for only the 2014 migratory bird hunting season.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Annually the department establishes migratory game bird hunting seasons based on a federal framework that is presented to Wisconsin by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. This proposal takes advantage of nearly all of the opportunities offered under the federal framework.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The department establishes migratory game bird hunting seasons based on a federal framework that is presented to Wisconsin by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Because of the federal guidelines, Wisconsin's regulations are similar to those in neighboring states.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.

Notice of Hearings

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

EmR1420, EmR1422

(DNR #s WM-05-14(E) and WM-08-14(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 10, 11, 15, and 45. These emergency orders have been adopted by the Natural Resources Board, are currently in effect, and the public hearing is being held to fulfill statutory requirements. Natural Resources Board Order WM-05-14(E) is related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only. Natural Resources Board Order WM-08-14(E) is related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Time:   2:00 p.m.
Location:   Natural Resources State Office Building
  (GEF-2)
  Room 608
  101 South Webster Street
  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 Submission of Written Comments

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] and must be submitted by October 29, 2014. 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.

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.

Board Order WM-05-14(E) Related to Establishing a Season for Hunting Deer with Crossbows-Only

Plain language rule analysis of board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

These rules are necessary to implement 2013 Act 61 which directs the department to establish deer hunting seasons where the use of crossbows is allowed and other crossbow related regulations. Specifically, these rules would:

Section 1 eliminates the definition of an “archery hunt" because it is no longer consistent with current law or a necessary provision in this chapter.

Section 2 describes the allowable uses of deer carcass tags by archery hunters in a location where deer hunting bag limits are established so that a person reading administrative code will be aware of them. The actual requirements are established by the act.

Section 3 establishes the season for hunting deer with a crossbow-only as required by the act. This section also describes the allowable uses of deer carcass tags by crossbow hunters in a location where deer hunting bag limits are established so that a person reading administrative code will be aware of them. The actual requirements are established by the act.

Sections 4 and 5 establish that hunting hours for firearm and archery hunters also apply to hunters using crossbows.

Sections 6 to 8, 11 to 13, 16, 19, 26, and 30 add the word “crossbow" to provisions where appropriate because firearms, bows, or handguns are currently listed. These sections also add a description or cross-reference to a crossbow license or season as appropriate in locations where archer or firearm licenses or seasons are already listed or cross-referenced.

Section 9 repeals the prohibition of the use of crossbows for most hunting purposes.

Section 10 updates language to include crossbows and bolts in a section where bows and arrows are currently listed. This section also explains the minimum poundage requirement for crossbows so that information is located in one place. However, the minimum poundage requirement is also established in statute.

Sections 14 and 15 explain that a person who has already been issued a crossbow license will not receive archery deer carcass tags when they purchase an archer license and that the converse is also true. However, a person may use archery and crossbow deer carcass tags interchangeably if they possess both license types.

Sections 17 adds “crossbow" to provisions which already restrict possession of bows and firearms at the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and notes that possession of loaded, uncased handguns is allowed by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun.

Section 18 establishes a season for hunting deer with crossbows that is consistent with the current archer season at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge.

Section 20 adds “crossbow" to provisions which already restrict possession of bows and firearms at the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge and notes that possession of loaded, uncased handguns is allowed by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun.

Sections 21 and 22 update terminology and cross-references and establish a season for hunting deer with crossbows that is consistent with the current archery season at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.

Section 23 to 25 add “crossbow" to provisions which already restrict possession of bows and firearms at the Sandhill Wildlife Demonstration Area, Grand River Experimental Hunting Area, and Bong State Recreation Area. For all three properties, these Sections also note that possession of loaded, uncased handguns is allowed by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun. For the Bong recreation area, a remedial revision is made to reflect previous rule making which established that rifles are now allowed statewide, particularly for deer hunting.

Sections 27 and 28 establish crossbow hunting seasons which are consistent with archery deer hunting seasons at a number of waterfowl hunting closed areas where some archery deer hunting is currently allowed.

Section 29 establishes that crossbow deer hunting is not allowed at times when archery deer hunting is not allowed under current rules at the Buckhorn wildlife area.

Sections 31 to 34 add “crossbow" to provisions which already restrict possession of bows and firearms at 37 game refuges and notes that possession of loaded, uncased handguns is allowed by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun.

Sections 35 to 38 update language to include crossbows in various provisions where it is currently only required that bows and arrows be unstrung or enclosed in a carrying case on certain department managed lands.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations for board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states for board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

In Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota, a doctor must certify that a person is unable to hunt by archery methods because of a physical disability before the use of a crossbow is authorized for deer during the archery deer seasons. An exception in Illinois is that anyone may use a crossbow for deer hunting during the later portion of the archery deer season beginning on the second Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday.

In Michigan, anyone who is 10 years old or older may use a crossbow throughout the archery deer season in the Lower Peninsula and during the early archery deer season in the Upper Peninsula.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies for board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

The department is directed by 2013 Act 61 to promulgate emergency rules establishing deer hunting seasons in 2014 and 2015 where the use of crossbows is allowed. Under the act, the crossbow season must be identical to the archery season. Other substantiative provisions of this rule, such as the allowable uses of carcass tags, are also written as directs by the act. For this emergency rule, the department has limited discretion in drafting.

When permanent rules which are also required by the act are promulgated, the department will have much greater statutory authority and more decision making ability.

This board order does make numerous remedial revisions to reflect the new status of crossbows as generally allowed for hunting. Additional remedial revisions reflect that statutes now allow the possession of loaded, uncased handguns by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun, including in department closed areas and game refuges where possession of other weapons is restricted.

Throughout the rule, references to “archery" and “crossbow" are intended to reflect statutory language which creates an “archer hunting" license and a “crossbow hunting" license.

Anticipated private sector costs for board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on small business for board order WM-05-14(E) related to establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only

No effects on small business are anticipated. State statutes have already established that crossbow hunting is allowed and the conditions for the use of crossbows, including the required licenses and the season dates for 2014 and 2015. These rules will not establish any additional requirements or exceptions that would have an economic impact. These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under s. 227.24 (3m), Stats.

Board order WM-08-14(E) Related to Implementation of the Deer Management Assistance Program and County Deer Management Advisory Committees

Plain language rule analysis of board order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

Specifically, these rules would:

Sections 1 and 2 establish definitions of an “authorized representative" and “primary contact" for purposes of the Deer Management Assistance Program.

Sections 3 and 4 allow the sales of antlerless deer hunting permits to a landowner or primary contact who is enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program or their authorized representative. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than face value cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property.

Section 5 establishes that membership on a County Deer Management Advisory Committee may also include a participant in the Deer Management Assistance Program.

Section 6 clarifies that the department will establish guidance for the operation of County Deer Management Advisory Committees and that background checks of volunteer committee members may be conducted.

Federal Regulatory Analysis for Board Order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the Deer Management Assistance Program and County Deer Management Advisory Committees

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 has been delegated to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states for board order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

Michigan is implementing a Deer Management Assistance Program which is comparable to the program being established in Wisconsin. All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and to manage white-tailed deer herds and involve the public establishing management goals hunting opportunities. Wisconsin's efforts at public involvement are likely more extensive than those in our surrounding states. However, deer are a common wildlife species and provide significant hunting opportunities in all of our surrounding states.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies for board order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

This emergency rule order will facilitate the issuance of antlerless deer permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program. Additionally, this order allows additional representation on County Deer Management Advisory Committees, committees which are established for the purpose of seeking comment from members of the public on the status of the deer herd at the county level.

Under current rules and statutes, with limited exceptions, deer hunting permits can only be used by the individual to whom the permit is issued. During the winter and spring of 2014 the department has been working with stakeholders to develop the Deer Management Assistance Program which was a recommendation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report. During program development, the department has identified a need for more flexibility in the way that permits are issued and used in order to implement the program efficiently and to best serve customers.

These rules would allow sales of antlerless deer hunting permits to a landowner or primary contact for landowners who are enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program or their authorized representative. In the case of a cooperative, which is a number of properties enrolled and managed as a group, permits would be issued to the primary contact for the group. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than face value cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property. These rules would not change existing requirements that the tags can only be used during the normal deer hunting seasons and in ways that are consistent with all other deer hunting regulations.

The Deer Management Assistance Program is designed to provide habitat and herd management assistance to landowners interested in managing their property for wildlife. The program is identified and defined under Wis. Stat. s. 29.020 and Wis. Admin. Code s. NR 10.70. Objectives of the program are to; promote sound land stewardship practices, provide outreach and educational information to landowners about wildlife habitat management practices, provide a means for site-specific deer management, and to improve relationships.

The program objective to provide site-specific deer management alternatives will benefit property managers in obvious ways by allowing them to work with the department to establish very specific harvest levels based on localized information.

Site specific deer management will benefit all hunters and people impacted by deer at the much larger management unit level as well. An example is that, in some situations, deer numbers that prevent forest regeneration or result in agricultural damage could be managed at a local, property specific level. This would eliminate a need to compromise with unit-wide antlerless deer permit levels that address pockets of over-abundance only minimally and which might also be perceived as allowing too much harvest of antlerless deer in other areas of the unit or county.

Maintaining the landowner's control over the use of permits by allowing the landowner, primary contact, or their authorized representative to distribute them may be an important feature to make participation attractive to property managers or owners. Allowing permit transfers creates efficiency for the department because we would not need to establish rules or automated license system processes to assure that permits are distributed in a manner preferred by the landowner. Only one contact with the department is all that would be needed to purchase all antlerless permits for a property. It is possible that a landowner would not be a hunter - but someone who would be interested in purchasing and distributing the permits to family, friends, and others. Simplicity, value, and good success rates in the use of these antlerless deer permits will make an important contribution to the objective of site-specific deer management.

Emergency rules currently in place establish county deer management advisory committees for the purpose of seeking comment from members of the public on the status of the deer herd at the county level beginning in 2015. Membership on these committees, in the ceded territory as defined by s. NR 13.02 (1), may include a representative of Wisconsin Chippewa bands and, statewide, a representative of; agriculture, forestry, tourism, transportation, local government, and a local organization representing hunting interests. These rules establish that committee membership may also include a participant in the Deer Management Assistance Program. The membership of a Deer Management Assistance Program participant may be important to provide information from the perspective of properties where habitat and deer herd conditions have been evaluated in detail.

This emergency rule will also clarify that the department is responsible for establishing the rules of operation for the county deer management advisory committees. Finally, the rule authorizes the department to conduct criminal backgrounds checks for people who apply to be committee members. It may be important that members are viewed as being in good standing to work with other members of the public to manage resources which are statutorily held in the public trust.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis for board order WM-08-14(e) related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

Because the hunting season frameworks and regulations proposed in this rule will be comparable to those in place under current rules, no economic impacts are anticipated. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and people who are interested in white-tailed deer management and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.

Anticipated private sector costs for board order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the deer management assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on small business for board order WM-08-14(E) related to implementation of the Deer Management Assistance program and county deer management advisory committees

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons or others who are interested in deer management at a very local level. They impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under s. 227.114 (6) or 227.14 (2g).

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, [e-mail]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Board Order WM 05-14 (E) modifying Ch.'s NR 10 Game and Hunting, 11 Closed Areas, 12 Wildlife Damage and Nuisance Control, 15 Game Refuges, and 45 Use of Department Properties.
Subject
Establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only and remedial revisions.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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 Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The department is directed, in the non-statutory provisions of 2013 ACT 61, to promulgate emergency rules that establish hunting seasons where the use of crossbows is allowed.
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)
Because these are emergency rules the department is not required to offer a comment period on this economic analysis. The department will hold a comment period pursuant to Governor's Executive Order 50, Section IV, when permanent rules are promulgated. Fiscal impacts on the department are also summarized in this analysis. Economic Impact The department is directed by 2013 ACT 61 to promulgate emergency rules establishing deer hunting seasons in 2014 and 2015 where the use of crossbows is allowed. Under the Act, the crossbow season must be identical to the archery season. Other substantiative provisions of this rule, such as the allowable uses of carcass tags, are also written as directed by the ACT. For this emergency rule, the department has limited discretion in drafting and any potential economic impacts would be a result of the ACT and not these rules. Fiscal Impact The department anticipates no fiscal impact resulting from these rules. Substantiative provisions of this rule are written as directs by the ACT. For this emergency rule, the department has limited discretion in drafting and any potential economic impacts would be a result of the ACT and not these rules. The department has invested significant resources to update automated license systems in preparation of the 2014 crossbow season.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The department is required to implement these rules.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
These emergency rules will only be in place for the 2014 and 2015 deer hunting seasons and long range implications are not anticipated.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
In Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota, a doctor must certify that a person is unable to hunt by archery methods because of a physical disability before the use of a crossbow is authorized for deer during the archery deer seasons. An exception in Illinois is that anyone may use a crossbow for deer hunting during the later portion of the archery deer season beginning on the second Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday. In Michigan, anyone who is 10 years old or older may use a crossbow throughout the archery deer season in the Lower Peninsula and during the early archery deer season in the Upper Peninsula.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Board Order WM 08-14 (E) modifying Ch. NR 10 Game and Hunting.
Subject
Issuance of antlerless permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program and participation in County Deer Management Advisory Committees, Ch. NR 10 Wis. Admin. Code.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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 Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This emergency rule will facilitate the issuance of antlerless deer permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program. This order will also allow additional representation on County Deer Management Advisory Committees, committees which are established for the purpose of seeking comment from members of the public on the status of the deer herd at the county level.
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)
Because these are emergency rules the department is not required to offer a comment period on this economic analysis. The department will hold a comment period pursuant to Governor's Executive Order 50, Section IV, when permanent rules are promulgated. Fiscal impacts on the department are also summarized in this analysis. Economic Impact Because the hunting season frameworks and regulations proposed in this rule will be comparable to those in place under current rules, no economic impacts are anticipated. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and people who are interested in white-tailed deer management and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Fiscal Impact The department anticipates no fiscal impact resulting from these rules. Additional automated licensing system programming will not be required to implement the proposals. These rules would allow issuance of antlerless deer hunting permits to a primary person who is enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program or their designee. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than face value cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property. Allowing permit transfers creates efficiency for the department because we would not need to establish automated license system processes to assure that permits are distributed only to people designated by the primary program enrollee (there is also not time to implement such a system in 2014 and, since an alternative could not be implemented anyway, our proposed rule is not considered to be a cost savings). Only one contact with the department is all that would be needed to issue all antlerless permits for a property.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Simplicity, value, and good success rates in the use of these antlerless deer permits will make an important contribution to the objective of site-specific deer management. Alternatives to this method of implementation are limited because of the importance of implementing the program in 2014. There is limited time for the development of needed technology to implement alternatives. Not implementing the rule is an alternative but this may not result in delivering the best customer service.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
These emergency rules will only be in place for the 2014 deer hunting season. Long range implications may be evaluated in an economic impact analysis of a permanent rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Michigan is implementing a Deer Management Assistance Program which is comparable to the program being established in Wisconsin. All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and to manage white-tailed deer herds and involve the public establishing management goals hunting opportunities. Wisconsin's efforts at public involvement are likely more extensive than those in our surrounding states. However, deer are a common wildlife species and provide significant hunting opportunities in all of our surrounding states.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.

Notice of Hearings

Safety and Professional Services

Plumbing, Chs. SPS 381—387

EmR1423, CR 14-056

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Safety and Professional Services in sections 145.02 (2), 227.11 (2) (a), and 227.24 (1) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes, and interpreting section 145.02 (2) of the Statutes, the Department will hold a public hearing at the time and place shown below to consider an order to renumber Chapter SPS 384 Table 384.10 rows 1 to 5, to renumber and amend Chapter SPS 384 Table 384.10 row 6, and to create Chapter SPS 384 Table 384.10 rows 1 and 9 and (Note), relating to water-treatment devices. As provided in section 227.24 (4) of the Statutes, this hearing will also be for emergency rules that identically address these Chapter SPS 384 criteria.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, October 27, 2014
Time:   1:00 p.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121C
  (enter at 55 North Dickenson street)
  Madison, Wisconsin

Appearance 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 arguments in writing as well. Facts, opinions, and arguments may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance, by e-mail to [e-mail] or by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8366. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rulemaking proceedings.

The proposed rulemaking order and permanent rules and an analysis of the rules follow. Copies of the emergency rules and the proposed permanent rules are also available upon request to the Rules Coordinator shown above, or on the Department's website at http://dsps.wi.gov/Default. aspx?Page=44e541e8-abdd-49da-8fde-046713617e9e, through links to SPS 384: Water-Treatment Devices.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Comments may be submitted to the agency contact person as listed immediately above. Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2014, to be included in the record of rulemaking proceedings.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 145.02 (2), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 145.02 (2), 227.11 (2) (a), and 227.24 (1) (a), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Under section 145.02 (2), Stats., the Department has general supervision of all plumbing in connection with all buildings in Wisconsin, and must prescribe and enforce reasonable standards therefor that must be uniform statewide so far as practicable, in order to safeguard the public health.

Section 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., authorizes the Department to promulgate rules interpreting any statute that is enforced or administered by the Department, if the rule is considered necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.

Section 227.24 (1) (a), Stats., authorizes the Department to promulgate rules as emergency rules if preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or welfare necessitates putting the rules into effect prior to the time they would take effect if the agency complied with the otherwise-applicable procedures in ch. 227, Stats.

Related statute or rule

Chapter SPS 382 contains the Department's statewide requirements for construction, installation, and maintenance of all plumbing in connection with all buildings in Wisconsin.

Plain language analysis

These rule revisions discontinue the Department's review of water treatment devices that (1) are certified as complying with a material-safety standard by a certification body which is accredited by the American National Standards Institute, and (2) are then used in compliance with that listing.

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

Maximum levels for contaminants in drinking water are established in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 141. Individual states develop and apply health or plumbing codes to achieve compliance with those maximums.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states:

An Internet search of state-level rules for water-treatment devices in the adjacent states yielded the following results:

Illinois: The Illinois Department of Public Health requires their approval of all devices in all plumbing systems, under section 890.210 of subchapter r in chapter I of title 77 of the Illinois Administrative Code. All plumbing devices must comply with an applicable referenced standard, and be listed by an accepted third-party agency. The only referenced standard for water softener and treatment systems that was found is NSF/ANSI 44–2012, in section 890.Appendix A, Table A.

Iowa: The Iowa state plumbing code incorporates the 2012 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code® (UPC), from the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. The 2012 UPC requires compliance with and incorporates several industry standards for water treatment devices. The UPC similarly requires testing and listing of these devices — to demonstrate compliance with these standards — by a similarly accredited, third-party certification body.

Michigan: The Michigan state plumbing code incorporates the 2012 edition of the International Plumbing Code® (IPC), from the International Code Council®. The 2012 IPC requires compliance with and incorporates several industry standards for water treatment devices.

Minnesota: No references to adopted standards for water treatment devices were found in the Minnesota state plumbing code.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

These rule revisions were developed by reviewing current industry and regulatory best practices, in conjunction with stakeholder input — and in relation to the Department's corresponding statutory authority.

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

Because these rule revisions, in essence, simply discontinue a duplicative review by the Department, they are not expected to negatively affect small business.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis follows.

Effect on Small Business

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

Agency Contact Person

Sam Rockweiler, Rules Coordinator, at the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, WI, 53708-8366; or at telephone [phone]; or by e-mail at [e-mail]; or by telecommunications relay services at 711.

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
SPS 384, Plumbing Products
3. Subject
Water Treatment Devices
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			20.165 (2) (j)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues X Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget X 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
Under current rules, water treatment devices – including water softeners – may need two separate approvals before being used in Wisconsin. The first approval is typically from a third party, such as NSF International, and is based on an industry standard. The second approval is under SPS chapter 384, which addresses situations where a plumbing product must receive approval from the Department. Due to prolonged extreme weather conditions this past winter, spring, and summer, more private well owners than usual have chosen to upgrade their water supply systems this year. The Department has reason to believe that its secondary review is delaying some of these well owners from accessing plumbing products which would improve the safety of their drinking water. These products have been approved under industry standards and are available to consumers in other states but have not yet received approval from the Department.
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.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No significant negative economic or fiscal impact is expected.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Well owners who are waiting to upgrade their water supply systems until the Department's duplicative review is completed could stop waiting for this upgrade.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Same as number 13.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sam Rockweiler				608-266-0797

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

Notice of Hearings

Safety and Professional Services —
Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board

CR 14-057

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board in ss. 15.08 (5) (b), 457.03 (1), and 457.03 (3), Stats., and interpreting s. 457.08, Stats., the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend sections MPSW 3.09 (3) and (3m) and 5.01 (2) and (3), relating to social worker credentials.

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Time:   12:30 p.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  (enter at 55 North Dickinson St.)
  Room 121A
  Madison, Wisconsin

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 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 at 12:30 p.m. on October 28, 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, by email at [e-mail].

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 457.08, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 457.03 (1), and 457.03 (3), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Each board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and the guidance of the profession to which it pertains and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular profession.

The Board shall promulgate rules establishing the minimum standards for supervised clinical training that must be completed for licensure as a clinical social worker and establish appropriate educational, training, experience, examination, and continuing education requirements for each level of social worker credentials.

Related statute or rule

Section 440.071, Stats.

Plain language analysis

Section 1 removes the two requirements which are not in statute for licensure as a clinical social worker. The legislature removed the requirement that the supervised clinical social work practice be completed in no less than 2 years when it inserted the 3,000 hour requirement. This rule removes the requirement which remained in the administrative code after the statutory change. The other requirement is deleting the requirement that the 1,000 hours of face-to-face include DSM diagnosis and treatment of individuals. The statute requires only that the 3,000 hours experience be in clinical social work practice. The requirement that the supervised experience must include DSM diagnosis and treatment of individuals is not in the statutes and creates a higher burden on the applicant than the statutory requirements.

Section 2 brings the rule in compliance with Wisconsin 2014 Act 114 which created a provision that a credentialing board may not require a person to complete the postsecondary education before the person is eligible to take an exam. The current rule allows an applicant to take the exam for social worker or advanced practice social worker prior to graduation provided the school confirms the applicant is in good standing and is within 6 months within graduation. The current rules go beyond the statutes by requiring the school to indicate the person is in good standing and limiting the ability of the applicant to decide when to take the test. This rule removes the requirement for the school to confirm the applicant is in good standing and the requirement that the student must be within 6 months of graduation.

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

None

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: Illinois does not require completion of education prior to taking the exam. Illinois does not require the supervised clinical hours to be completed in a specified time frame. An applicant is required to obtain 3,000 hours of supervised professional experience in clinical social work practice but does not specifically require “DSM treatment and diagnosis".

Iowa: Iowa does not require completion of education prior to taking the exam. An applicant is required to have 2 years full time practice or 4,000 hours over a minimum of 2 years and maximum 6 years period of performing psychosocial assessment, diagnosis and treatment. At least one component of the diagnostic practice must include working knowledge of DSM.

Michigan: Michigan does not require completion of education prior to taking the exam. Michigan requires at least 4,000 hours in not less than 2 years. An applicant is required to obtain hours in clinical social work practice but does not specifically require “DSM treatment and diagnosis".

Minnesota: Minnesota does not require the completion of education prior to taking the exam. Minnesota does not require the supervised clinical hours to be completed in a specified time frame. An application is required to have 200 hours of supervision during not less than 4,000 hours and not more than 8,000 hours of supervised clinical social work practice, which must include both diagnosis and treatment.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The methodology was removing portions of the rule which are inconsistent with statutes.

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

This rule was posted for economic comments for 14 days and none were received.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis follows.

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
MPSW 3, 5
3. Subject
Social Worker Credentials
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   X PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			20.165(1)(g)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The policy problem is to correct rules which place a burden on the applicants by going beyond statutory requirements. The legislature removed the 2 year requirement when it inserted the 3,000 hour requirement for supervised clinical social work. The current rule also requires the 1,000 hours of face-to-face client contact to include DSM diagnosis and treatment of individuals which is a requirement that is not in the statutes. Therefore, these two requirements put a higher burden on the applicants than the statutory requirements. In addition, current rules are not in conformity with 2013 Act 114 by requiring the exam may be taken prior to completion of the required degree only upon confirmation from the applicant's school that the applicant is in good standing and is within 6 months of graduation, thus limiting the ability of the applicant to decide when to take the test.
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 was posted for economic impact comments and none were received.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None. This rule does not affect local governmental units.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There is no economic or fiscal impact.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit to implementing the rule is to bring the current rules in conformity with the statutes and reduce the burden on the applicant.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication is the rule will conform to the statute.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois and Minnesota do not require the clinical hours to be completed in a specific timeframe; Iowa requires 2 years of full time practice or 4,000 hours between a 2 and 6 year period; and Michigan requires at least 4,000 in not less than 2 years. Illinois and Michigan do not specifically require DSM treatment and diagnosis; Iowa requires at least one component of the diagnostic practice must include a working knowledge of DSM; and Minnesota requires both diagnosis and treatment. Our neighboring states do not require the completion of education prior to taking the exam.
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.