Staff time required
Estimated hours of staff time - 30 hours.
Entities affected by the rule
Wisconsin residents attending post-secondary institutions of higher education.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. Rules that classify and regulate invasive species.
Policy analysis
The rules will group invasive species into different categories and regulate as necessary the importation, possession, sale and transport of invasive species in order to prevent established invasive species from spreading.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
1.5 years.
Comparison with federal requirements
Existing federal regional and state classification systems were examined and components of those models were incorporated, as appropriate.
Entities affected by the rule
Affected parties may include the plant nursery industry & agriculture industries, fish farmers, bait dealers, aquarium and ornamental fish dealers, game farms, landowners, anglers, and gardeners.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. On May 18, 2005, the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was promulgated. This rule establishes mercury control requirements for new and existing coal-fired utility boilers. The rule sets a declining cap on mercury emissions in two distinct phases, 2010 and 2018, for each state. A national trading program has been developed as an option for states to achieve their mercury emission cap. New sources (those that commence construction after January 30, 2004) must meet a standard of performance (pounds of mercury per megawatt-hour) and any mercury emissions from these new sources must also be accommodated under the state mercury cap.
From the date of promulgation states have eighteen (18) months to submit to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a state plan to meet the requirements of the CAMR. Failure to submit a state plan by November 18, 2006, will result in the imposition of a federal plan to implement the CAMR in Wisconsin.
Policy analysis
An acceptable state plan must meet the requirements of section 111, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, of the federal Clean Air Act. This would include a description of the control measures that will meet the statewide mercury budget and fully adopted rules with the CAMR compliance dates and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions. States may join the national trading program by adopting the components of the model trading rule USEPA has developed.
State Mercury Rule Interaction
On October 1, 2004, Wisconsin began implementing requirements to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers operated by major electric utilities in the state. These requirements are included in Chapter
NR 446, Control of Mercury Emissions, Wis. Adm. Code. The reduction requirements and compliance schedule in the state rule are more restrictive than the CAMR. Although states are not prohibited from having more stringent requirements than CAMR, the state rule requires that the Department adopt revisions to reflect federal requirements within eighteen (18) months of the promulgation of federal mercury standard. This would include adoption of the federal emission limitations as well as administrative requirements such as monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping.
Flexibility in the CAMR
The CAMR allows states the flexibility to determine how to achieve the required mercury reductions including whether to join the national trading program that would allow interstate trading of mercury allowances. In addition, each state must determine how to allocate the mercury budget that USEPA established to the affected utility units and companies. The 2010 to 2017 annual budget for Wisconsin is 1,780 pounds of mercury which declines to 702 pounds of mercury in 2018 and thereafter. A critical issue is the distribution of this allocation among the four affected electric utilities in the state.
Legal challenge to CAMR
Wisconsin is one of eleven states that have filed a lawsuit challenging the cap and trade approach in the CAMR to achieve mercury emission reductions. The contention is that this approach is inappropriate for a hazardous air pollutant like mercury because meaningful reductions can be significantly delayed and local mercury deposition may not be addressed. These same states, in a separate action, have also challenged USEPA's decision not to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants under the provisions of section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants, of the federal Clean Air Act. USEPA chose instead to use the provisions in section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act that allows a more flexible compliance schedule and approach to achieving emission reductions than section 112 provisions. The outcome of these actions may affect this rule revision.
Statutory authority
Sections 111 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act [42 USCS sec. 7411 (a), (b), (c), and (d)] and Sections
285.11,
285.13,
285.17 and
285.27, Wis. Stats.
Staff time required
It is estimated that 500 hours will be needed to develop this rule revision.
Comparison with federal requirements
The state mercury rule in Chapter
NR 446 has different mercury emission reductions and compliance determination requirements. The purpose of this action is to revise the state rule to mirror the federal CAMR requirements.
Entities affected by the rule
The federal CAMR rule affects new and existing coal-fired utility boilers in the state that serve a generator larger than 25 MW that produces electricity for sale. Also affected is any coal-fired co-generation unit that supplies more than 1/3 of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 MW electrical output to a utility for sale.
A preliminary analysis of the applicability of the CAMR indicates that 48 coal-fired boilers operated by eight electric utilities in the state may be subject to its provisions. The utilities affected are Alliant Energy, Dairy Power Cooperative, Madison Gas & Electric Company, Manitowoc Public Utilities, MidAmerican Energy Company, WE Energies, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Xcel Energy.
Nursing Home Administrator Examining Board
Subject
Approval and acceptance of academic course work completed at accredited colleges and universities as fulfilling the continuing education hours required for renewal of the nursing home administrator certificate of registration.
Objective of the rule. Under the current rules, in order for a licensee to obtain credit for continuing education course work completed at an accredited college or university, the course work must be approved by the National Association of Boards of Examiners of Long Term Care Administrators (NAB). The board proposes to revise the rules to state that certain programs offered by accredited colleges and universities will be acceptable for continuing education hours without having to be approved by NAB.
Policy analysis
Wis. Admin. Code §
NHA 3.02 (1) states that every nursing home administrator shall complete 24 hours in approved continuing education programs in each biennial renewal period. Section
NHA 3.02 (1m) states that, except as provided in s.
NHA 3.03 (4), continuing education programs must be approved by the National Association of Boards of Examiners of Long Term Care Administrators (NAB).
The board proposes to revise the rules to state that certain programs offered by accredited colleges and universities will be acceptable for continuing education hours without having to be approved by NAB. The board also proposes to limit the number of continuing education hours that may be claimed for course work completed at accredited colleges and universities to 18 contact hours within the 2-year renewal period immediately preceding the date of renewal. In addition, the subject matter of the programs will be limited to specific areas that are relevant to the practice of nursing home administration.
Statutory authority
Comparison with federal requirements
There is no existing or proposed federal legislation.
Staff time required
200 hours.
Entities affected by the rule
Nursing home administrators obtaining credit for continuing education course work.
Tourism
Subject
Ch.
Tour 1 - relating to the joint effort. marketing program.
Objective of the rule. The single objective of the rule is to allow for a second consecutive year of funding for Existing Event projects under the Joint Effort Marketing tourism grant program.
Policy analysis
The Joint Effort Marketing program provides for grants to non-profit organizations engaged in tourism activities that are directed at increasing tourism spending. Grant funds may be used for the development of publicity, the production and media placement of advertising and direct mailings that are part of a project and overall advertising plan of the applicant organization intended to increase tourism in Wisconsin.
Funding may be used for advertising of an event, for advertising of a sales promotion and for destination marketing advertising that is not tied to an event or promotion, but which is directed at extending the tourism market for the applicant and which has been identified by the Department as a market for the state.
If the project advertises an existing event, the rules require that the advertising be placed in a new geographic market, or reach a new demographic market, or the use of media where advertising for the event has not previously been placed. Existing Event projects are limited to one year of funding.
The proposal would allow the department to fund a second consecutive year of an existing event project.
The policy alternatives are to leave the program regulations as they are or to adopt the change being proposed.
Entities affected by the rule
Wisconsin non-profit and tourism organizations which choose to apply for a Joint Effort Marketing grant in the Existing Event category.
Comparison with federal requirements
None.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Department estimates that it will take approximately 10 hours of staff time on the rule, which includes discussing the rule with the Council on Tourism and interested members of Wisconsin's tourism industry.
Transportation
Subject
Objective of the rule. This rule making will bring the Department's administrative rules into sync with the agency's reorganized structure.
Policy analysis
DOT was reorganized effective May 31, 2005. As part of that reorganization, DOT's various district boundaries for its motor vehicles, state patrol, and transportation infrastructure divisions were reduced to 5 and consistent boundaries were established for all 5. In doing so, the Department now began calling these districts “regions."
Consistent with s.
84.01 (3), Stats., the various administrative rules promulgated by DOT all refer to “districts" rather than “regions." This rule making proposes to amend the Administrative Code to substitute the term “region" for “district," or equate the two terms, consistent with DOT's new five geographic regional structure.
This rule making will eliminate any possible confusion that could be caused by rules that refer to “districts" when DOT's organizational chart now calls its 5 districts “regions."
Comparison with federal requirements
No federal regulation applies.
Entities affected by the rule
None
Statutory authority
Staff time required
40 hours .
