Sections
29.011,
29.014,
29.024,
29.03,
29.053(3),
29.192,
29.193,
29.885,
169.21,
169.39 and
227.11, Stats.
Statutes interpreted
Sections
29.011,
29.014,
29.024,
29.03,
29.053(3),
29.192,
29.193,
29.324,
29.592,
29.885,
169.21,
169.39 and
227.11, Stats.
Plain language rule analysis
The intent of these rule changes is to correct drafting errors, provide clarification to existing rules, simplify regulations, and update administrative code language and references. Policy issues affected by this rule are ones which have already been addressed by previous rulemaking. The proposed rules will:
1. Allow customers to request free hard copies of turkey, pheasant, trout, waterfowl or salmon stamps through the phone, a designated county clerk's office, or any department office that provides counter service.
2. Update agency contact information and requirements for administration of the Wildlife Violator Compact Program.
3. Clarify that a person who may only hunt with a mentor, and the mentor with whom they are hunting, can group hunt for deer even though they are only allowed to possess or control one firearm jointly. The season must be open for both hunters, they must be hunting within arms reach of one another, and both must possess the proper licenses and permits. This is consistent with s.
29.324, Stats., related to group hunting and simplifies the explanation of how this law applies during a mentored hunt.
4. Eliminate extraneous deer hunting season language and add a cross reference to update language following the 2006 sunset of a two-year experiment with seasons that did not include October antlerless only deer hunts.
5. Eliminate the description of where hunting is allowed at Big Bay state park because it is unnecessary and the only state park for which such language is established in code.
6. Update a cross reference related to the hours when hunting is allowed.
7. Clarify that in addition to .410 shotguns, it is also illegal to hunt deer, bear or elk with handguns which fire .410 shotgun slugs.
8. Update cross references related to deer registration and deer carcass tags in the CWD zone.
9. Clarify that enforcement action can be taken against a person who fails to report bobcat harvest as required.
10. Repeal a redundant, unnecessary prohibition on hunting from a roadway specifically for wild turkeys.
11. Clarify that when the assistant to a disabled hunter uses a firearm to aid in retrieval of a deer or turkey that has been shot by the disabled hunter, the assistant needs to possess a deer hunting license or any license that authorizes hunting when retrieving a turkey.
12. Clarify that disabled hunters participating in special hunts may tag a deer of either sex with their gun buck carcass tag and additional antlerless deer if they possess valid tags for that unit.
13. Move a provision to a more proper location in order to simplify code language about the removal of nuisance animals.
14. Clarify that a federal permit for the removal of certain nuisance animals can serve as the state permit in order to reduce paperwork. The state could still review permits.
15. Clarify that deer may be shot under the authority of nuisance permits on the day before the opening of nine day gun season in the CWD Management Zone where other firearm hunting is also allowed on that day. Outside the CWD Management Zone, hunting with firearms for species other than waterfowl would continue to be prohibited.
16. Clarify that hunters under the authority of damage and nuisance program permits can retain more than one deer when authorized by the department.
17. Clarify that pen standards apply to captive coyote, fox and rabbit when being transported or for the purpose of health care or treatment and special handling needs. These standards already apply for animals possessed under the authority of Ch.
NR 16 related to captive wildlife and to bear, bobcat and raccoon possessed under the authority of Ch.
NR 17, dog trials and training.
Related statute or rule
There are no state rules or statutes currently under promulgation that directly relate to the provisions that are proposed in this administrative order.
Comparison with federal regulations
These state rules and statutes do not relieve individuals from the restrictions, requirements and conditions of federal statutes and regulations. Regulating the hunting and trapping of native species has been delegated to state fish and wildlife agencies. Additionally, none of the proposed rules exceed the authorities granted to states in
50 CFR part 10.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
These rule change proposals do not represent significant policy changes and do not differ significantly from surrounding states. All surrounding states have regulations and rules in place for the management and recreational use of wild game and furbearer species that are established based on needs that are unique to that state's resources and public desires.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This rule order is necessary to correct inconsistencies created through the promulgation of other rules and statutes, update code language, correct previous drafting errors, and to clarify existing administrative code language. The rule changes included in this order do not deviate from current department policy on the management of wildlife and the regulation of hunting and trapping.
Small Business Impact
Pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
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 the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Anticipated private sector costs
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no significant costs are associated with compliance to these rules.
Long-range fiscal implications
None are anticipated.
Agency Contact Person
Scott Loomans
101 South Webster Street
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: (608) 267-2452
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Air Pollution Control,
Chs.
NR 400—
(DNR # AM-06-10)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
227.16 and
227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold public hearings on amending and creating rules affecting Chapter
NR 410, relating to increased and new fees for asbestos notifications and inspections and affecting small business.
Hearing Information
Date and Time: Location:
June 3, 2010 Natural Resources State Office Bldg.
Thursday Room G09
at 1:30 PM 101 S. Webster St.
Madison, WI
June 4, 2010 Northcentral Technical College
Friday Main Building, Room E101
at 11:00 AM 1000 West Campus Drive
Wausau, WI
Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Robert B. Eckdale in writing at the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S Webster, Madison, WI 53707; by E-mail to
Robert.Eckdale@wisconsin.gov; or by calling (608) 266-2856. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies 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 provided on the Proposed Air Pollution Control Rules Calendar at
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ air/rules/calendar.htm. 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 Robert B. Eckdale, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S. Webster St., Madison, WI 53703, or by calling (608) 266-2856.
Submittal of Written Comments
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before June 8, 2010. 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:
William Baumann
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management (AM/7)
101 S. Webster Street, Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 267-7542
Fax: 608 267-0560
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Sections
227.11 (2) (a) and
227.14 (1), Stats., expressly convey rulemaking authority. Section
285.69 (3), Stats., conveys authority to establish fees for specified department activities, and sets maximum levels for those fees.
Related statute or rule
Chapter
NR 447 contains regulations related to asbestos abatement activities.
Plain language analysis
The rules amended and created by this proposed order increase fees for certain Department of Natural Resources (Department) asbestos regulatory activities, and create new fees for asbestos regulatory activities related to fire training burns and revised asbestos notifications. These additional fees will offset decreases in federal United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Pollution Control grant funds that had previously been used to fund (in part) Department asbestos regulatory activities.
Comparison with federal regulations
Chapter
NR 447 contains asbestos regulatory requirements, which parallel corresponding federal regulations. The rule changes and additions proposed in this order change the fees used to fund Department asbestos regulatory activities, but do not affect the underlying regulatory requirements themselves. There is no federal counterpart to the ch.
NR 410 fee rule.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota each operate federally delegated asbestos programs. Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota each fund their respective asbestos programs with federal grant funds. Illinois, similar to Wisconsin, funds their asbestos program activities through fees charged for asbestos notifications. Illinois fees are $150 per notification, regardless of other factors (size of project, etc.). If a notification is received late, an additional $300 is charged to the contractor. Lab analysis costs may be charged to the owner or operator in large enforcement cases, along with employee overtime costs that result from enforcement cases.
