Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

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

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

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

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

Small businesses affected

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

Reporting, bookkeeping, and other procedures

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

Professional skills required

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

Accommodation for small business

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

DATCP Contact

Cindy Klug, Director

Bureau of Food Safety and Inspection

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: [phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail].

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

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
ATCP 55-Meat and Meat Products
3. Subject
Drug residues in meat and meat products
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   X FED   ⍽PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			102
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule will specify corrective actions that must be required by state-licensed meat establishments from certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producers for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at state- or federally-inspected meat establishments. Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
The rule will have little impact on state inspected meat establishments at which livestock are slaughtered (about 100 establishments), and will have a slight impact on a very small number of livestock producers and veterinarians.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Local governmental units are not impacted by this rule change and did not participate in the development of this EIA.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
State-Inspected Meat Establishments: Current rules prohibit submission for slaughter of a food animal for human consumption if the person submitting the animal knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. This rule change will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated, with animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List defined as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on the proper administration of animal medications. This rule change is anticipated to have little impact on operators of meat establishment at which livestock are slaughtered, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Livestock Producers: Under the rule change, livestock producers who are listed on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List will be required to complete a course on the proper administration of animal medications and present written documentation of their course completion before submitting animals for human consumption for slaughter at a state-inspected meat establishment. Very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list and this rule change will have no impact on the majority of livestock producers who follow proper procedures for the administration of animal medications. Livestock producers who take a course in proper administration of animal medications will have to bear costs associated with the course presentation (likely a registration fee to cover expenses incurred by the course presenters) and time away from their regular work. We characterize this impact as slight. Veterinarians: Successful completion of a course in proper administration of animal medications by a producer will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian. This involvement will require a time commitment by a very small number of veterinarians. We characterize this impact as slight.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule change will benefit state inspected meat establishments, all of whom are small businesses, by clarifying procedures they must follow in the event that a producer on the Repeat Residue Violators List submits a food animal for slaughter. Implementing these mandatory procedures will further decrease the likelihood that animals with illegal drug residues enter the human food chain, and will protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations. It adds an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action would normally be taken. The rule change will help livestock producers who are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List improve their practices for administering animal medications and avoid future problems. If the rule is not implemented, there is a chance that producers on the Repeat Residue Violators List would present animals containing illegal residues to unknowing meat establishment operators. Although this scenario is unlikely,the economic importance of the meat industry in Wisconsin is high enough that prudent steps should be taken to make illegal drug residues in meat even more unlikely to occur.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, the rule change will have a positive long-term economic impact on Wisconsin's meat industry.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing the risk associated with food safety hazards. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by 9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants. One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for abattoir operators to avoid accepting animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected, but not required in regulation, to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before accepting animals for slaughter. The list is compiled by the National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS which has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List. Federal regulations do not require producers on the list to take any corrective actions prior to submitting animals for slaughter. Federal action against residue repeat violators is generally not taken unless the US Food and Drug Administration investigates, issues a warning letter and, upon further violations, obtains an injunction against the livestock producer. This process is cumbersome, lengthy, and does not happen often. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations, and it will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action is needed.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and all meat slaughtered and processed in Michigan is federally-inspected by USDA. Illinois' state meat inspection program includes USDA's Federal-State Cooperative program (formerly known as the “Talmadge-Aiken" program). Under this program, state inspectors conduct federal inspections. Minnesota and Iowa operate state meat inspection programs. All processors of meat and meat products, whether operating under state meat-inspection programs or the USDA program, are expected to minimize the risk associated with drug residues and to consult the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before purchasing animals for slaughter. The approach proposed in this rule revision is innovative and goes beyond requirements in neighboring states which operate state meat inspection programs. Although enforcement of the provisions in the proposed rule is expected to be infrequent, the provisions are necessary to protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Cindy Klug, Director — Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection				[phone]

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

ATTACHMENT A

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

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

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

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

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

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting X Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements X Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards X Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements ⍽ Other, describe:

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

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

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

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

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—

rulemaking_notices EmR1205 EmR1205

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

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

Hearing Dates and Locations

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

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Scott Loomans at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

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

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov or by searching the keywords “administrative rules" on the department's website. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to [e-mail]. Written comments, whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail, will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Loomans.

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with rulemaking. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Plain language rule analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal regulatory analysis

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

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

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

Illinois

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

Iowa

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

Michigan

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

Minnesota

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

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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