Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 685, 1/14/2013

Rule-Making Notices

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

CR 13-001

(DNR # FH-19-12)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to and interpreting ss. 29.014 (1), 29.041, 29.519 (1m) (b), and 29.733 (2) (f), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to Chapters NR 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26, Wis. Adm. Code, in permanent rule Order FH-19-12 relating to housekeeping changes to Wisconsin fishing rules.

Hearing Information

Date:   Thursday, January 31, 2013

Time:   2:00 p.m.

Location:   Department of Natural Resources State
  Office Building
  101 S. Webster Street
  Room 413
  Madison, WI 53707

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

Availability of Rules and Submitting Comments

The proposed rule supporting documents may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. A copy of the proposed rules and supporting documents may also be obtained from Kate Strom Hiorns, Bureau of Fisheries Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or [e-mail].

Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail or email to Kate Strom Hiorns at the addresses noted above. 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. Comments may be submitted until January 31, 2013.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

This rule is being proposed to make non-substantive housekeeping changes to sections of NR 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the regulation of fishing and harvest of turtles. The goal is to ensure the rule language that governs fishing in inland, outlying, and boundary waters is accurate and properly reflects the desired management of Wisconsin waters. The rule is in response to recent legislative changes and to the interests of the public and both Law Enforcement and Fisheries Management staff. The objectives are to:

•add language to respond to newly created statutory language,

•remove sections of code that are outdated or have been replaced by other statute or code changes,

•correct errors that occurred during the drafting of rules, and

• add or repeal language to clarify intent of original rules.

Section 1 clarifies that setlines and set or bank poles are authorized methods for taking turtles. Another section of code lists the use of setlines and bank poles for taking turtles and these are already commonly used, accepted methods.

Sections 2 to 6 amend Subchapter III of Chapter NR 19, which regulates fish farms in natural waterbodies, in response to statutory changes in 2011 Wisconsin Act 207. Under those changes, natural waterbody permits now do not expire unless the department makes a finding that substantial public interest exists in the waterbody and that public or private rights in the waterbody will be damaged. A natural waterbody permit will not be required for someone wishing to use a natural waterbody for a fish farm if he or she was already issued a permit for changing the course of a stream, enlarging a waterway, or constructing a dam. In addition, the department is not required to hold a hearing or provide notice that it will not hold a hearing before issuing a permit, but it must post a notice of every permit application on its website.

Section 7 creates no possession limit for food distribution services — as defined in statute as programs that provide food or serve meals directly to individuals with low incomes or to elderly individuals, or that collect and distribute food to persons who provide food or serve meals directly to these individuals — that lawfully receive fish for purposes of redistribution. This clarifies in code the existing law enforcement policy on fish donations.

Sections 8, 11, 15, 50, and 53 revise code to match statutory changes that allow anyone to fish for rough fish with a crossbow under the same circumstances as with a bow and arrow and adding Asian carp to the definition of rough fish, in response to 2011 Wisconsin Act 180.

Section 9 clarifies in code that trolling is allowed as provided in s. 29.193(1m), Stats., which authorizes trolling approvals for disabled persons.

Sections 10, 44, 45, and 56 update Wisconsin-Michigan boundary water regulations. Section NR 23.01, Wis. Adm. Code, was amended in 2009 to include the language “The provisions of this chapter, along with other applicable rules and statutes, regulate fishing in WI-MI boundary waters." which had the unintended result of applying some regulations in s. NR 20.20 to boundary waters. This rule will restore night fishing and remove a hook gap restriction on the Menominee River. In addition, rough fish spearing will be closed again on all WI-MI boundary waters. Specific language has been absent in ch. NR 23 regarding spearing, and, before 2009, regulation books stated that rough fish spearing was closed year round. This rule will specify that rough fish spearing is again closed in all WI-MI boundary waters and return regulations to how administrative code was previously interpreted and enforced. Wisconsin's regulations will match Michigan regulations and are intended to improve public understanding of rule enforcement on these shared waters. Department of Natural Resources staff from both states met in 2011 and agreed to make night angling, hook size, and spearing changes for consistency between state regulations and for clarity within code.

Section 12 revises code to match statutory changes that allow 12- and 13-year olds to apply for a sturgeon spearing license in response to 2011 Wisconsin Act 168. Previously the lower age limit was 14 years of age.

Sections 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 43 remove the unnecessary notations of a 40-inch size limit for muskellunge in ss. NR 20.20 (1) through (72) county regulations. A minimum size limit of 40 inches is the general inland waters size limit for muskellunge and is indicated in existing s. NR 20.20 (73) (g). This regulation was effective April 1, 2012.

Section 22 removes expired language for regulations on Twin Valley Lake in Iowa County.

Section 27 corrects mistakenly printed regulation language for largemouth and smallmouth bass in Langlade County. There is no change to the regulation.

Section 31 corrects language for bass regulations on the Minocqua Chain in Oneida County. The early catch and release season dates for largemouth and smallmouth bass were left out in error during rule changes in 2012.

Section 32 removes expired language for largemouth and smallmouth bass in Big Round Lake and Balsam Lake in Polk County.

Section 34 clarifies the boundaries for trout regulations on the East Fork of Raccoon Creek (also known as Paddock Creek) in Rock County. Original code language was unclear and resulted in enforcement issues. Trout have only been stocked in the East Fork of Raccoon Creek and the regulation applies only to that classified section of trout waters.

Section 40 adds sunset language for bass regulations on Sparkling Lake in Vilas County that was mistakenly excluded from rule printing in 2008.

Section 46 prevents overlapping start and end dates of differing regulations for walleye, sauger, and hybrids on the Fox River downstream from the DePere Dam. Currently, the early season regulation begins on March 2 while the alternate regulation ends on the first Sunday in March. These dates may overlap in certain years.

Sections 47, 49, 52, and 55 provide free fishing during the third weekend in January each year when no license is required to fish in inland, outlying, and boundary waters, in response to statutory changes in 2011 Wisconsin Act 168.

Section 48 removes perch in Vilas County from the list of detrimental fish under s. NR 20.38. There are and never were any contracts issued for removal of perch on those waters and abundant perch are no longer considered bad for the fishery.

Sections 51, 54, and 57 makes ice shelter labeling rules the same on boundary waters as on inland waters. Owners will not be required to post their names and addresses on fishing shelters that are occupied or otherwise in use.

Sections 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, and 68 make corrections to code or remove expired language within Chapter NR 25, rules governing commercial fishing in outlying waters.

Sections 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, and 71 delete references to minimum harvesting requirements for commercial fishing in the Great Lakes, in response to statutory changes in 2011 Wisconsin Act 177.

Section 72 adds the Old Stone Quarry to the list of secondary ports where fish are landed by commercial fishers. Commercials fishers need to call in a plan to the local warden each day that fish are being landed at a secondary port and this location is already being used as such. Law enforcement staff support this addition to code language.

Sections 73, 74, 75, 76, and 78 remove notations of expired fish refuges in Chapter NR 26.

Section 77 extends the boundary of an existing fish refuge on Wingra Creek in Dane County. The extension is necessary because a rebuilt and extended platform next to the refuge reduces protection for fish populations in this refuge area.

Effect on Small Business

Pursuant to ss. 227.114 and 227.137, Wis. Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department conducted an economic impact analysis in consultation with businesses, business associations, local governmental units, and individuals. The Department determined that this rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or the overall economic competitiveness of this state. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Environmental Analysis

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.

Agency Contact Person

Kate Strom Hiorns

Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921,

[phone]

[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
⍽ Original     X Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Sections of NR 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26 relating to the regulation of fishing
3. Subject
Housekeeping changes to ensure the rule language that governs fishing in inland, outlying, and boundary waters is accurate and properly reflects the desired management of Wisconsin waters. The rule is in response to recent legislative changes and to the interests of the public and both Law Enforcement and Fisheries Management staff.
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 ⍽ 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 objectives are to:   add language to respond to newly created statutory language,   remove sections of code that are outdated or have been replaced by other statute or code changes,   correct errors that occurred during the drafting of rules, and   add or repeal language to clarify intent of original rules.
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 proposed rule will have minimal impact on businesses and members of the public. As with any change in regulations, there will be a requirement for anglers to learn the new rules. However, a majority of this rule change clarifies code to reflect existing policies with which anglers must already comply. The Fisheries Management Bureau works to notify the public of new regulations via press releases, the internet, and fishing regulations pamphlets. The following organizations were contacted by the Department for economic impact comments: Wisconsin Conservation Congress, WI Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, WI Association of Lakes, WI Bow Hunters Association, WI Archery Alliance, WI Traditional Archers, WI Federation of Great Lakes Sport Fishing Clubs,WI Council of Sport Fishing Organizations, Federation of Fly Fishers - Wisconsin Council, Musky Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin, Inc., Salmon Unlimited, Trout Unlimited - WI Council, Walleyes for Tomorrow, WI Bass Federation, Izaak Walton League-Wisconsin Division, Lake Michigan Fisheries Forum, Wisconsin Aquaculture Association, American Fisheries Society-Wisconsin Chapter, Natural Resources Foundation of WI, Gathering Waters, River Alliance of Wisconsin, UW Sea Grant, League of WI Municipalities, WI Towns Association, WI Counties Association, Northeast WI Great Lakes Sport Fishermen, and Great Lakes Sport Fishermen of Milwaukee.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
The open comment period was conducted during November 2012. No local governments commented or requested to participate in the development of the 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)
The Department only received one comment during the EIA comment period and it was not related to an economic impact. The Milwaukee Great Lakes Sport Fishing Club stated it was in favor of amending rules to make it easier to donate fish to local charities in Milwaukee. It is not expected that there will be any economic impact directly related to these rule changes on anglers or fishing-related businesses. The proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The proposed rule will include non-substantive changes to administrative code that support existing policies and goals. Fishing regulations in this rule, such as length and bag limits or season dates, are used as a tool to ensure good fishing exists into the future. The goal of fish management, as stated in s. NR 1.01(2), is “to provide opportunities for the optimum use and enjoyment of Wisconsin's aquatic resources, both sport and commercial. A healthy and diverse environment is essential to meet this goal and shall be promoted through management programs."
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The goal is to ensure the rule language that governs fishing in inland, outlying, and boundary waters is accurate and properly reflects the desired management of Wisconsin waters.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to states. None of the proposed changes violate or conflict with federal regulations.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Fisheries management rules are generally similar in the states surrounding Wisconsin. Each bordering state regulates fishing by the use of seasons, bag limits and size limits. Specific seasons and bag and size limits may differ for species among the surrounding states, but the general principles are similar. Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois all have statewide seasons and bag and size limits for fish species, along with special or experimental regulations on individual waters. The Department meets with the Michigan and Minnesota departments of natural resources each year to discuss management and regulation changes.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Kate Strom Hiorns				608-266-0828

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)

N/A

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

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

⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements ⍽ 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 ⍽ Other, describe:

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

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

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

⍽ Yes ⍽ No

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Psychology Examining Board

CR 12-055

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Psychology Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 455.08, Wis. Stats., and interpreting section 455.04 (5), Wis. Stats., the Psychology Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section Psy 2.12 (2); renumber section Psy 2.12 (3) and (4); and amend section Psy 2.09 (4) relating to applicant appearances.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Time:   9:00 a.m.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions, and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submissions

Comments may be submitted to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail]. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held at 9:00 a.m. on February 6, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at Sharon.Henes@wisconsin. gov.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 455.04 (5), Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 455.08, Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Each examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains, and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or procession. The Psychology Examining Board shall adopt such rules as are necessary under chapter 455, Wis. Stats.

Related statutes or rules

Section 455.04 (5), Wis. Stats.

Plain language analysis

Section 1 amends s. Psy 2.09(4) to reflect the statute provision which has a discretionary provision regarding appearances. Currently the rule requires every applicant to appear before the Board in person prior to licensure as a psychologist. The change will reduce the administrative burden of the resources of the Psychology Examining Board and the Department of Safety and Professional Services. It would also significantly reduce the time it takes an applicant to become licensed because they would no longer have to wait until a scheduled meeting to make an appearance.

Section 2 repeals the provision for licensure by reciprocity for applicants who are licensed in another state which is a signatory to the agreement of reciprocity of the Association of State Provincial Psychology Boards. The reciprocity agreement requires an appearance before the Board as part of the licensing process. Currently there are only seven other signatory states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas). None of these states are neighboring states, therefore the change would not have a significant impact on applicants.

Section 3 renumbers s. Psy 2.12 (3) and (4) to s. Psy 2.12 (2) and (3).

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois:

Illinois does not require a personal appearance.

Iowa:

Iowa does not require a personal appearance.

Michigan:

Michigan does not require a personal appearance.

Minnesota:

Minnesota does not require a personal appearance.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Psychology Examining Board conformed the rule to the statute. No additional factual data or analytical methodologies were used.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

This rule creates a change which matches the statutory languages. The rule has a positive effect on applicants and does not have an effect on small business.

This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

The proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

Please direct any questions to Sharon Henes, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. Psy 2.09 (4) is amended to read:

Psy 2.09 (4) APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD. The applicant shall may be required to appear before the board in person prior to licensure to allow the board to make such inquiry of them as to qualifications and other matters as it considers proper.

SECTION 2. Psy 2.12 (2) is repealed.

SECTION 3. Psy 2.12 (3) and (4) are renumbered to Psy 2.12 (2) and (3).

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Psy 2
Subject
Applicant Appearances
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED X PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget X Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This amendment will bring the rule in line with the statutes which has a discretionary provision regarding applicant appearances rather than the current rule which is mandatory. The rule also repeals the reciprocity provision because the Agreement of Reciprocity of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards requires a personal appearance before the Board.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There is no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit to rule will reduce the administrative burden of the resources of the Psychology Examining Board and the Department of Safety and Professional Services. It would also significantly reduce the time it takes an applicant to become licensed because they would no longer have to wait until a scheduled meeting. The repeal of the provision regarding the Agreement of Reciprocity of the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards would have minimal impact due to there only being seven other signatory states and none are neighboring states. The alternative to rule change would be to continue requiring every applicant to appear before the Board prior to obtaining a license.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication would be streamlined application process.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
None of our neighboring states require a personal appearance before the Board prior to issuance of a license.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Veterinary Examining Board

CR 12-051

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Veterinary Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (1), Wis. Stats., and interpreting section 453.02 (4s), Wis. Stats., the Veterinary Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section VE 1.02 (8); and to amend section VE 1.02 (7) relating to the definitions of patient and prescription legend animal drugs.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Time:   9:00 a.m.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov.

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submissions

Comments may be submitted to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 30, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 453.02 (4s), Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (1), Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

An examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the profession to which it pertains. The Board may promulgate rules establishing the scope of practice.

Related statute or rule

Section 453.02 (4s), Wis. Stats.

Plain language analysis

Section 1 is amended in order for the definition of “patient" in the rule to match the definition in the statute.

Section 2 is repealed due to “Prescription legend animal drugs" no longer being referenced in the VE Code.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None.

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois:

Illinois Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004 defines patient as “an animal that is examined or treated by a veterinarian." 225 Ill. Comp. Stat § 115/3. The Rules do not have a separate definition.

Iowa:

Iowa statutes and administrative code do not define patient; only animal.

Michigan:

Michigan statutes and administrative code do not define patient; only animal.

Minnesota:

Minnesota statutes define patient" as an animal for which a veterinary prescription drug is used or intended to be used. Minn. Stat. § 156.16.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Veterinary Examining Board ensured the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data were used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

This rule updates a definition to match the statutory definition and repeals a definition no longer used, therefore there is no economic impact. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

There is no effect on small businesses.

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

Agency Contact Person

Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. VE 1.02 (7) is amended to read:

(7) “Patient" means the an animal being that is examined or treated by a veterinarian.

SECTION 2. VE 1.02 (8) is repealed.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
VE 1.02
Subject
Definitions
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The rule will amend the definition of “patient" to match the definition in the statute and repeal the definition of “prescription legend animal drugs" due to no longer being used in the rule.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No economic or fiscal impact to business, organization or the economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit is creating consistency with rule and statute in defining “patient" in order to create clarity.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois defines patient as “an animal that is examined or treated by a veterinarian". Iowa and Michigan do not define patient; only animal. Minnesota defines patient as “an animal for which a veterinary prescription drug is used or intended to be used".
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Veterinary Examining Board

CR 12-052

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Veterinary Examining Board in sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats., and interpreting section 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats., the Veterinary Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal section VE 7.06 (22) (c), (d), (e) and (Note), section VE 9.05 (12) (c), (d), (e) and (Note), sections VE 10.02 (1) (a) 1., VE 10.02 (2) (a) 1., and VE 10.04; and amend sections VE 7.06 (22) and VE 9.05 (12) relating to continuing education and training in the use of pesticides by veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Time:   9:05 a.m.

Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  Madison, WI

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Place Where Comments Are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submissions

Comments may be submitted to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 30, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Proposed Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at Shancethea.Leatherwood @wisconsin.gov.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b) and 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

An examining board shall promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the profession to which it pertains. The Veterinary Examining Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes.

Related statute or rule

Section 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats.

Plain language analysis

The passage of 2009 Wisconsin Act 139 amended s. 453.03 (2), Wis. Stats., to create an exception to the promulgation of rules requiring training and continuing education sufficient to assure the competency of veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians in the practice of veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians in the practice of veterinary medicine. Per the statutory amendment, the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes.

Currently s. VE 10.04 requires a certification on the renewal application that veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians have taken one credit of continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides during the two years prior to the renewal. Section 6 repeals this requirement.

Sections 1-5 amends or repeals portions of the Administrative Code to remove all references to s. VE 10.04.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

None.

Comparison to rules in adjacent states

Illinois:

Illinois does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Iowa:

Iowa does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Michigan:

Michigan does not require any continuing education for veterinarians or veterinary technicians.

Minnesota:

Minnesota does not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Veterinary Examining Board ensured the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data were used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Analysis

Per 2009 Act 139, the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning pesticides and this rule will repeal the requirements currently in place. This rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.

Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary

There is no effect on small businesses.

Agency Contact Person

Shancethea Leatherwood, Paralegal, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. VE 7.06 (22) is amended to read:

VE 7.06 (22) Falsely certifying to the board under s. VE 10.02 (6) or 10.04 (1) that the veterinarian:

SECTION 2. VE 7.06 (22) (c), (d), (e), and Note are repealed.

SECTION 3. VE 9.05 (12) is amended to read:

VE 9.05 (12) Falsely certifying to the board under s. VE 10.02 (6) or 10.04 (1) that the veterinary technician:

SECTION 4. VE 9.05 (12) (c), (d), (e) and Note are repealed.

SECTION 5. VE 10.02 (1) (a) 1.and 10.02 (2) (a) 1. are repealed.

SECTION 6. VE 10.04 is repealed

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
VE 7, 9, 10
Subject
Continuing education and training in the use of pesticides
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Per 2009 Act 139, the Board may not require training or continuing education concerning the use, handling, distribution, and disposal of pesticides other than for disciplinary purposes. This rule will repeal the requirements currently in place requiring continuing education in this area.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No economic or fiscal impact to business, organization or the economy as a whole.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The benefit is the rule will be in line with the statutory authority regarding continuing education.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Our neighboring states do not require continuing education in the use, handling, distribution and disposal of pesticides.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Sharon Henes [phone]