Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

(4) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements.

(5) Providing advice comparing health benefit plans that may be better or worse for the consumer or employer.

(6) Recommending a particular health benefit plan or insurer or advising consumers or employers regarding a particular insurer or health benefit plan selection.

(7) Engaging in any fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest acts or unfair methods of competition.

(8) Receiving consideration directly or indirectly from any health insurance issuer in connection with the enrollment of individual or employees into a qualified health plan as defined 45 CFR § 155.20, as amended.

6.97 Navigator, nonnavigator assister, navigator entity, and nonnavigator assister entity records. (1) Purpose. This section protects consumers by prescribing minimum standards and techniques of accounting and data handling of navigators, nonnavigator assisters, navigator entities and nonnavigator assister entities to ensure that timely and reliable information will exist, if applicable, and be available to the commissioner. This section implements and interprets ss. 601.42, and 628.34, Stats., by establishing the minimum records that are to be maintained.

(2) Cash disbursed record. The cash disbursed record shall show the name of the party to whom the payment was made, date of payment, and reason for payment.

(3) Cash receipts record. The cash receipts record shall show the name of the party who remitted the money, date of receipt, and reason for payment.

(4) Personnel records. Personnel records shall include dates of employment, supervision or affiliation; position held; description of principal duties; name and last known address and telephone number of employee, supervisee or affiliated person.

(5) Recordkeeping requirements. Beginning October 1, 2013, each navigator, nonnavigator assister, navigator entity or nonnavigator assister entity shall maintain, for at least a 3-year period, unless a specific period is provided elsewhere, all of the following financial, consumer and employee records, as applicable:

(a) Business checking account.

(b) Cash disbursed records.

(c) Cash receipts records.

(d) Personnel records.

(e) Consumer or policyholder records.

(6) Place of maintaining records. (a) The navigator shall maintain records required by subs. (2) to (5), at the business address of the navigator or the navigator entity, or at another location only if the navigator provides written notice of the other location to the commissioner of insurance.

(b) The nonnavigator assister shall maintain records required by subs. (2) to (5), at the business address of the nonnavigator assister entity or at another location only if the nonnavigator assister entity provides written notice of the other location to the commissioner of insurance.

(7) Updating records. The navigator entities and nonnavigator assister entities shall maintain financial records, if any, all records of compliance with prelicensing training completion, successful passage of the examination and continuing education completion, compliance with federal training and other federal requirements for the navigators and nonnavigator assisters it employs, supervises, or is affiliated with, as applicable for at least 3 years from the transaction of an insurance business.

Ins 6.98 Prohibition of uses of designations. (1) Prohibited uses of designations. It is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under s. 628.34 (12), Stats., for an agent to use terms including “navigator," “navigator entity," “nonnavigator assister," “certified application counselor," and “nonnavigator assister entity," in such a way as to mislead a purchaser or prospective purchaser that the agent has special certification or training in advising or providing services to consumers in connection with the advertising, solicitation, sale, or purchase of a health insurance policy or in the provision of advice as to the advisability of purchasing a health insurance policy, either directly or indirectly, offered in the state either within or outside the exchange. The terms may not be used by an agent who is not licensed as a navigator or registered as a nonnavigator assister. The terms may not be used alone or be combined with one or more such terms as “certified," “licensed," “registered," or like words, in the name of the certification or professional designation that appears as a certification or professional designation.

(2) Penalties. A violation of this section is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under s. 628.34 (12), Stats., and shall subject the violator to ss. 601.41, 601.62, 601.64, 601.65 and 628.10, Stats.

Ins 6.99 Exemption. Governmental entities or any persons acting on behalf of a governmental entity are exempt from subch. II.

SECTION 3. Effective Date. This rule will take effect on the first day of the month after publication, as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

Private Sector Fiscal Analysis

Section Ins 6.91 relating to navigators and nonnavigator assisters and affecting small business.

The proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the private sector. With an exemption for governmental entities, there will be no effect on county, city, village, town, school district, technical college district and sewerage districts. Additionally the office will be able to manage any cost associated with maintaining the licensure and registration process without additional state funds being provided to the office during this current biennium.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (C04/2011)					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
1.   Fiscal Estimate Version
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
2.   Administrative Rule Chapter Title and Number INS 6.91
3.   Subject navigators and nonnavigator assisters and affecting small business
4.   State Fiscal Effect:
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues					⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Yes X No   May be possible to absorb       within agency's budget. ⍽ Decrease Costs
5.   Fund Sources Affected: ⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽SEG-S						6 Affected Ch. 20, Stats. Appropriations:
7.   Local Government Fiscal Effect:
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Revenues ⍽ Decrease Revenues			⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Decrease Costs
8.   Local Government Units Affected: ⍽ Towns ⍽ Villages ⍽ Cities ⍽ Counties ⍽ School Districts ⍽ WTCS Districts ⍽ Others: None
9.   Private Sector Fiscal Effect (small businesses only):

X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Revenues ⍽ Decrease Revenues ⍽ Yes X No   May have significant     economic impact on a     substantial number of     small businesses		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Yes X No   May have significant     economic impact on a     substantial number of     small businesses ⍽ Decrease Costs
10.   Types of Small Businesses Affected:
Individual licensed agents working as a navigator or nonnavigator assister, small organizations that work with consumers, and some surety bond issuers that may be considered a small business.
11.   Fiscal Analysis Summary
The proposed rule may affect small businesses; however, the Office has taken steps to minimize the impact of the rule by limiting the effect of the regulation to those navigators or nonnavigator assisters who are working on behalf of the federal government. For perspective, the federal government only awarded six navigator grants for the entire state of Wisconsin. There are no restrictions or regulations for governmental entities or persons who work with such entities. These governmental entities currently assist consumers with health insurance and public assistance concerns and will not be impacted by this regulation. By keeping the scope of the proposed rule very narrow, the impact on small businesses is lessened. Further, the proposed rule limited the amount of fees navigator and navigator entities are required to pay annually and did not impose fees on nonnavigator assisters or nonnavigator assister entities other than the cost of prelicensing training and examination costs. The office minimized the impact by establishing less stringent requirements than those imposed on licensed insurance agents and agencies. Further, the office provided, and continues to provide, some free prelicensing training to interested parties and in locations throughout the state in advance of the first open enrollment period. Additionally, the office approved licensed vendors to provide prelicensing training both in-person and on-line to reduce imposition on organizations. Finally the office imposed slightly lower fees than is required for licensed agents.
12.   Long-Range Fiscal Implications
None.
13.   Name — Prepared by Julie E. Walsh		Telephone Number [phone]		Date Dec. 20, 2013
14.   Name – Analyst Reviewer		Telephone Number		Date
Signature—Secretary or Designee		Telephone Number		Date

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
Ch. Ins 6.91 to 6.99
3. Subject
Navigators, nonnavigator assisters and related entities
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Ensuring the persons working on behalf of the federal exchange are of good character, have proper training and have sufficient oversight as navigators and nonnavigator assisters will have access to consumer's financial information.
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.
Navigators, nonnavigator assisters and related entities and possibly health care providers offering such assistance.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
None
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
The navigators and navigator entities have licensing or registration fees, costs for individual background checks and pre-licensing education classes. Nonnavigator assisters and entities have pre-licensing education class fees. As a condition of licensing have received federal funding to off-set costs of their contract.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule provides consistent oversight for similarly situated organizations and ensures the public receives accurate information and personal financial information is securely handled.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
None.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The requirements dove-tail with federal requirements and ensure Wisconsin consumers are protected. The rule does not duplicate federal requirements but ensures navigators and nonnavigator assisters are familiar with health insurance and public assistance programs available in the state.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The approach is very similar to laws or regulations passed in Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, Michigan does not have such a law or regulation.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Louie Cornelius				608-264-8113

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

ATTACHMENT A

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

The proposed rule may affect small businesses that perform outreach services to consumers to assist in educating consumers about the federal health exchange. The navigators were awarded federal grants and the nonnavigator assister entities are registered with the federal government. Both the navigators and nonnavigator assiter entities with provide assistance and education to consumers regarding the federal health exchange and will refer consumers to licensed insurance agents should the individuals need advice or additional assistance in applying for the federal exchange or private insurance. The impact of the proposed rule include the fees associated with licensing or registration and 16 hours of pre-licensing training. Navigators are additionally required to complete finger printing and criminal background checks similar to licensed agents and pay an annual licensing fee of $75. Navigator entities pay an annual registration fee of $100. Nonnavigator assisters must complete 16 hours pre-licensing education and pass the pre-licensing exam. Both navigator and nonnavigator assister entities must carry a bond or similar coverage to protect against errors that cause consumer harm.

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

The office held a public hearing on September 27, 2013 regarding the emergency rule that was issued September 10th and published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register on September 15 that included a 14 day comment period. Also the office sought input from interested parties and received comments both during and prior to the emergency rule comment period. Based upon those comments, the office revised the rule to lessen some of the burden for small businesses.

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

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting ⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements ⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards ⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements X Other, describe: The office provided free pre-licensing training to approximately 6,500 persons throughout the state to lessen the cost of the pre-licensing training.

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

The office changed the annual reporting dated from September to October to give entities more time, clarified that financial record keeping was only needed if the entities received money from consumers, exempted entities working with or that are governmental entities doing a similar business. Additionally, the office has worked with nonnavigator and navigator entities to facilitate obtaining affordable bond or similar coverage.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

The rule may be enforced as a violation of unfair and deceptive trade practice under ss. 601.41, 601.62, 601.64, 601.65, 628.10.

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Environmental Protection — General, Chs. 100—
Environmental Protection — WPDES, Chs. 200—

rulemaking_notices CR 13-112 CR 13-112

(DNR # SS-14-12 )

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on an order to repeal section NR 219.04, Table BM; to renumber sections NR 219.05 and 219.06; to amend sections NR 157.21, 219.04 (1), (2), (4) (Note), and 233.40 (2); to repeal and recreate section NR 219.04 Tables A, B, C, D, E, EM, ES and F; and to create section NR 219.04 Tables G and H, relating to analytical methods used for Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) compliance on the date(s) and at the time(s) and location(s) listed below.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, January 27, 2014
Time:   11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   DNR — LaCrosse
  3550 Mormon Coulee Rd
  McGilvray Room
  LaCrosse, WI

Date:   Monday, January 27, 2014
Time:   11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   DNR — Madison
  101 S. Webster St.
  Room 707
  Madison, WI

Date:   Monday, January 27, 2014
Time:   2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Location:   DNR — Green Bay
  2984 Shawano Ave.
  Lake Michigan Room
  Green Bay, WI

Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Richard Mealy, Madison, WI 53707; by E-mail to [e-mail] or by calling [phone]. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Availability of the proposed rules and fiscal estimate

The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/ public/Home. If you do not have Internet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Richard Mealy, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Science Services, 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53703, or by calling [phone].

Submitting Comments

Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before Monday January 27, 2014. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to:

Richard Mealy

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Science Services SS/7

101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Internet: Use the Administrative Rules System Web site accessible through the link provided.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statutes interpreted

Sections 283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11, and 299.15 (2), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 227.11 (2), 281.19 (1),283.31, 283.55 (1), 299.11, and 299.15 (2), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Section 281.19 (1), Stats., authorizes the department to issue general orders, and adopt rules applicable throughout the state for the construction, installation, use, and operation of systems, methods, and means to prevent and abate pollution of the waters of the state. Section 283.31, Stats., prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into any waters of the state or the disposal of sludge from a treatment work by any person unless such discharge or disposal is done under a permit issued by the department. Section 283.55 (1), Stats., requires permittees to use monitoring methods, including where appropriate, biological monitoring methods, to identify and determine the amount of each pollutant discharged from each point source under the owner's or operator's ownership or control. Section 299.15 (2) (a), Stats., authorizes the department by rule to prescribe methods of analysis for pollutants.

Related statutes or rules

Chapters NR 157 and 233, Wis. Adm. Code, and Chapter 283, Stats.

Plain language analysis

Specifically, the proposed rule package will address EPA's issues with the Department rule (ch. NR 219) incorporating SW 846 methods for wastewater sample analysis. The EPA publication SW- 846, entitled Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, is the waste division of EPA's official compendium of analytical and sampling methods that have been evaluated and approved for use in complying with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. The DNR has allowed SW 846 methods for analysis of wastewater samples since 1995 because the methods are revised frequently and contain stringent quality control measures. However, EPA has requested that DNR remove from NR 219 all references to allowing SW 846 methods as "approved" methods for analysis of wastewater samples. EPA has also requested that DNR update ch. NR 219 to incorporate analytical methods that have been federally approved in the Federal Register (40 CFR 136). Therefore, one objective of this rule change is to remove analytical methods that EPA has not approved for wastewater from the list of approved analyses in ch. NR 219. The other objective is to add methods that are currently allowed by EPA per 40 CFR Part 136 but are not included in ch. NR 219 at this time.

Summary and comparison with existing and proposed federal regulations

The federal counterpart to this rule is 40 CFR 136. On May 18, 2012, EPA published as final rule, “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures". The proposed revision to ch. NR 219 incorporates these changes and is consistent with the federal regulations.

Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states

The States of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota have wastewater programs delegated to them from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wisconsin has been the only state within EPA Region 5 which has allowed the use of SW-846 methods for NPDES compliance monitoring. Therefore, removing SW-846 methods from the rule will bring Wisconsin into line with other states.

With respect to new methods promulgated by the EPA, the Illinois EPA incorporated changes to 40 CFR Part 136 with legislation which took effect February 2013. The State of Michigan does not certify laboratories that perform analyses of wastewater. The Minnesota Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program incorporated the changes to 40 CFR Part 136 for its October 2013 application period. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources rules reference the 2007 edition of 40 CFR Part 136 at this time.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

This proposed rule revision brings Wisconsin up to date with the current federal rules that establish analytical test methods.

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

Alternate approved methods from different authoritative sources are available for all of the analytical methods that are being deleted. The quality control requirements for analyses are established in ch. NR 149; these will not change with updating methods tables. For several analyses, newer methods and techniques have been added. It is possible for a laboratory to change the analytical method it uses and not incur additional costs or, in some cases, actually reduce costs.

The requirements imposed upon small business include following approved analytical methods listed in the rule. There are no reporting requirements in ch. NR 219. The small businesses that will likely be impacted by this rule are commercial laboratories certified under ch. NR 149. The vast majority of these laboratories likely follow approved analytical methods that are being maintained in this chapter.

Effect on small business

The proposed changes to ch. NR 219 potentially only affect larger certified commercial laboratories and larger municipal wastewater facilities that analyze samples for compliance with their Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit. There are 371 laboratories certified or registered to perform analyses by the department. Of these, 238 municipal wastewater laboratories, 48 industrial environmental, and 71 commercial environmental will be impacted by this rule. The remaining laboratories are public health laboratories that analyze drinking water and those that perform testing at hazardous waste facilities. This update will allow laboratories to utilize new techniques that currently require approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and deletes outdated methods that lack adequate quality control procedures.

Of the 371 certified or registered laboratories that will be impacted by this rule, there are less than 12, 3% of the total, that fit the definition of “small businesses". This proposed rule would affect commercial, industrial, and municipal laboratories that analyze effluent discharges to determine compliance with WPDES permit limitations. All laboratories performing analyses to determine WPDES compliance are expected to keep detailed records of all laboratory information, including: analytical methods and results, corrective action logs, equipment records, quality control records, and sample receipt logbooks.

This proposal does not change analytical testing requirements, nor does it address any change in reporting, schedule or deadline requirements. Sections 299.11 and 283.55, Stats., do not allow for less stringent schedules, deadlines or reporting requirements. Laboratories may seek approval of an alternate test procedure, as specified in s. NR 219.05, Wisc. Adm. Code, from U.S. EPA. WPDES permit terms and conditions and other related regulations require that permitted facilities conduct analytical tests in compliance with the procedures of ch. NR 219. The Laboratory Certification and Registration Program audits laboratories performing these analyses to ensure that testing is performed in compliance with the proposed rule. If a laboratory does not follow an approved method, it is cited during the audit process; a laboratory must correct all identified deficiencies to maintain their certification under ch. NR 149.

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

Environmental Analysis

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

Fiscal Estimate Summary

This rule will have no fiscal effect on state government. Minimal economic impact associated with this rule revision is anticipated for local governments and the private sector. The majority of the costs are upfront costs resulting from labs having to change SOPs and from validating the new EPA methods. Even the minimal fiscal impact is unavoidable as this rule revision is being directed by the U.S. EPA.

Contact Person

Richard Mealy

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Science Services SS/7

101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

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

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
NR 219
3. Subject
Analytical test procedures and approved methods.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy X Local Government Units		X 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
Current wastewater analysis methods being used are not in compliance with EPA requirements. The EPA is requiring the WDNR to remove the SW 846 methods for wastewater analysis from the rule. SW 846 methods will still be included in NR 219 and allowed to be used for the analysis of sludge (currently Table EM). In addition, we will be adding methods the EPA has promulgated in the Method Update Rule (MUR) dated May 18, 2012.
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.
Laboratories using SW 846 methods could potentially be affected. These include small businesses, businesses, and municipal wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF). In our preliminary research we conducted a survey of 57 labs that could potentially be using SW-846 methods. We received 19 responses. Sixty-seven percent (thirteen respondents) anticipated no economic impact. Thirty-three percent (six respondents) anticipated some, but minimal economic impact.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
See above.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
We expect the economic and fiscal impact of this rule revision to be minimal. Those who responded to our survey reported costs ranging from $50 to $25,000. One lab did not provide a cost estimate. Four of the six respondents estimated costs less than $4,500. To estimate the economic impact statewide, we assume (based on responses) that 30 percent of state labs will need to revise their methods. The majority of the costs come from staff time spent revising SOPs and validating the new methods. Alternative methods are available online for free through the EPA. Methods are similar enough that laboratory equipment and supplies will likely be comparable in cost. Costs to laboratories will primarily be incurred from time spent validating new methods and revising SOPs. A survey was sent out to 57 labs known or believed to perform wastewater testing using the methods scheduled to be removed. There were 19 respondents (33% response rate). Survey questions and responses are as follows: 1. Do you use any of the SW-846 methods listed in NR219 for WPDES monitoring? •   Yes – 6 respondents •   No – 13 respondents. 2. Which SW-846 methods do you use? •   Respondents indicated an array of SW-846 methodologies, the majority of which were related to metals, volatile organics, and semivolatile organics.
3. Anticipated costs: •   $50 •   $1,300 •   $2,000 •   $3,000-$4,500 •   $25,000 (Note: There is no substantiation or rationale for this figure) •   Unknown 4. Lab equipment costs •   None/minor costs 5. Any anticipated difficulties •   Two said they would have to run both old and new methods which would be somewhat of a burden. 6. Other costs •   Most say none; one respondent said $42,000/year resulting from running additional controls and standards. The elimination of SW-846 methods , however, will not result in any increased frequency for quality control samples or standards. 7. Respondent classification •   Small business: 4 •   Business: 1 •   Municipality/WWTF: 1 In summary: Minimal economic impact associated with this rule revision is anticipated. The majority of the costs are upfront costs resulting from labs having to change SOPs and from validating the new EPA methods. Even the minimal fiscal impact is unavoidable as this rule revision is being directed by the U.S. EPA.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Wastewater analysis methods will be in compliance with EPA standards.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The costs are primarily up-front implementation costs; therefore, there are very few long-range implications of implementing this rule beyond the WDNR being in compliance with EPA standards.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
These regulations are established by the U.S. EPA.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
All the other U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio) are subject to the U.S. EPA regulations that are delegated to the states for implementation. Wisconsin's rules for laboratory standards should essentially be the same as the other states.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Richard Mealy				[phone]

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

Notice of Rulemaking Without Public Hearing