Rule-Making Notices
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection—Wis. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Chs.
200—
(DNR # WT-28-10)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
283.11(1),
(2);
283.21(2), and
283.31, interpreting ss.
283.11(1),
(2),
283.21(2), and
283.31, Wis. Stats., the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to ch.
NR 211, Wis. Admin. Code, relating to wastewater pretreatment requirements for DNR, pretreatment programs of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and for industries discharging wastewater to POTWs.
Hearing Information
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Location: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
101 E. Wilson St.
St. Croix Room
Madison, WI
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 as noted below. The public hearing sites are accessible to people with disabilities. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at a hearing site or require other accommodation, please contact Robert Liska at (608) 267-7631 (email:
Robert.Liska@Wisconsin.gov) 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 revisions, including the Fiscal Estimate and the Economic Impact Analysis may be viewed and downloaded and comments electronically submitted at the following internet site:
https://health.wisconsin.gov/ admrules/public/Rmo?nRmoId=10943 [type “NR 211" in the “search" field].
If you do not have internet access, a copy of the proposed rules and supporting documents, including the Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis may be obtained from Robert Liska, DNR-WT/3, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or by calling (608) 267-7631.
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
Written comments on the proposed rules may be submitted via U. S. mail to Robert Liska, DNR-WT/3, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or by e-mail to:
Robert.Liska@Wisconsin.gov.
Comments submitted on or before March 29, 2013, will be considered in developing a final rule. 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.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
The Department is proposing changes to Wisconsin Administrative Code Chap. NR 211 (General Pretreatment Requirements) regarding wastewater pretreatment requirements for the Department, for municipal pretreatment programs at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and for the industries which discharge to them. The proposed changes incorporate new federal pretreatment requirements, collectively known as “the Streamlining Rule", into NR 211 and enable Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements to more closely conform to federal pretreatment regulations found in
40 CFR Part 403. The rule changes generally reduce the regulatory burden on municipal pretreatment programs and on industries.
In addition, the Department proposes to eliminate outdated requirements in NR 211 for industries operating as centralized waste treaters that conflict with newer federal pretreatment requirements.
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Chapter
283 of the Wisconsin Statutes grants authority to the Department to establish, administer and maintain a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). Section
283.21 (2), Stat., authorizes the Department to promulgate pretreatment standards to regulate the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. Sections
283.11 and
283.31, Stats. provide authority to promulgate rules to administer the WPDES permit program consistent with federal requirements in the Clean Water Act.
Related statutes or rules
Chapter
NR 211, General Pretreatment Requirements, relates to the regulation of industrial wastewater discharges to publicly owned treatment plants (POTWs) in the ch.
NR 200 series of rules and in ch 283, Stats.
Plain language analysis
On July 18, 2011, the Department received a letter from US EPA identifying seventy-five questions or potential inconsistencies between Wisconsin law and federal Clean Water Act requirements. Issue # 16 of the EPA letter identified inconsistencies concerning requirements for industrial discharges to POTWs in Wis. Admin. Code, ch.
NR 211, compared with its federal counterpart in
40 CFR Part 403. The Department is proposing amendments to ch.
NR 211 regarding pretreatment requirements for industrial users and POTWs, in response to issue #16 identified by EPA. The proposed changes more closely align Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements with revisions to the federal pretreatment regulations known as the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, so named because many of the changes reduced federal pretreatment requirements for both regulated industries and their regulators (DNR or delegated POTWs with pretreatment programs).
The proposed Streamlining revisions to ch.
NR 211 would make the following significant changes:
1.
Remove sampling requirements for wastewater pollutants, discharged by industries to sanitary sewers, shown to be neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge.
2. Remove all pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements for industries never discharging more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of regulated industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer.
3. Reduce pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements (from twice per year to once per year) for industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to.
4. Reduce pretreatment inspection requirements (from once per year to once per 2 years) for municipal wastewater treatment plants, with industrial pretreatment programs, when inspecting industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to.
5. Require municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to repeat sampling at industries if a test result from the municipal sample exceeded a limit.
6. Allow municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to use a general discharge permit to regulate several similar industries rather than several individual discharge permits.
7. Require municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to include applicable Best Management Practices and slug control measures in industrial discharge permits.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations
Ch.
NR 211 is currently deficient in many respects compared with its federal counterpart,
40 CFR Part 403, which was revised in 2005 to include the changes collectively known as the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. These changes include the above significant changes, along with a number of lesser changes which address more detailed aspects of pretreatment regulations such as signature requirements and record keeping.
In its July 18, 2011 letter, U.S. EPA stated that existing state pretreatment regulations did not incorporate the changes made by EPA to the federal pretreatment regulations in 2005. Some of these changes made the federal regulation less stringent than it used to be, by reducing requirements; others made it more stringent. EPA has stated that Wisconsin must adopt the more stringent provisions into NR 211. (These, more stringent, provisions are described at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pretreatment_streamlining_required_changes.pdf.)
The proposed revision to NR 211 is intended to address EPA's concerns and also to incorporate those Streamlining changes that reduce pretreatment requirements for regulated industries and delegated POTWs without adversely affecting environmental protection.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The following U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio) have adopted the 2005 changes to the federal pretreatment regulation into their corresponding state regulations. In Michigan, a streamlining rule has been drafted but the authority of the state's environmental agency to adopt such a rule has been removed.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department has compared Wisconsin pretreatment regulations in ch.
NR 211 with the federal rule,
40 C.F.R. Part 403, and has proposed these changes to ch.
NR 211 to make it consistent with its federal counterpart and to address recent EPA concerns about the lack of consistency between these two rules.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis
As part of its research in creating the federal Pretreatment Streamlining Rule in 2005, U.S. EPA was required to address the economic impact of the same rule changes on small entities, i.e., small governmental units, industries and not-for-profit organizations, as are being proposed here. EPA concluded, in its Final Rule published Oct. 14, 2005, in the Federal Register, at 70 Fed. Reg. 60134 (Oct.14, 2005), that the national economic effect of its rule, “will either relieve regulatory burden or have no significant impact for all small entities." It also estimated that, overall, governmental units and industries would save $10.1 million annually by implementing the Streamlining changes.
Effect on Small Business
The Department estimates that the biggest impact of the proposed rule changes on small business will be the small cost savings (<$100 per year) in reduced wastewater sample test fees available to those industries, both large and small, that demonstrate that one or more of the pollutants they are required to test for are not present nor expected to be present. This estimate is based on recent pricing information the Department received from two analytical laboratories for the most common pollutants pretreatment industries are required to test for.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Summary
The Department is proposing these changes because state law (s.
283.11(2), Wis. Stats.) requires that state wastewater rules comply with – and not exceed – requirements in federal wastewater regulations. Because the current version of NR 211 has different requirements than its federal counterpart,
40 CFR Part 403, the Department is proposing this action. In addition, the Department has been notified by US EPA that Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements are not consistent with those in federal regulations. Also, all surrounding states have already adopted these federal pretreatment changes into their respective state pretreatment regulations.
Fiscal Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis Summary
From August 21, 2012 through September 21, 2012, the department solicited comments from industries and municipalities on the economic impact of the proposed rule change via a survey distributed to 108 DNR-regulated pretreatment industries and to 26 municipal pretreatment programs. The survey identified eight rule changes that could affect businesses and municipal pretreatment programs and requested comments from the recipients regarding the anticipated annual cost or benefit from the proposed changes
Based on the responses from 27 industries and four municipal pretreatment programs and Department estimates of the impact to commercial labs, the statewide economic impact of this rule appears to be minor. Totaling the costs and benefits reported by survey respondents, 224 industries likely to be affected by these rule changes may see average savings of $810 each, with total statewide savings approaching $181,000, three years after rule implementation; of the 20 municipal programs likely to be affected, two-thirds of them may see initial, one-time costs averaging $15,000 each and one-third, increasing annual benefits of $15,000 each, culminating in net, total statewide savings of $90,000 annually after 3 years. Finally, the ten commercial laboratories affected may see combined, total revenue losses of $33,000 per year after all affected industries have taken advantage of the rule changes in three years. While we recognize that these facilities are only a sampling of those in the state, we believe that their responses are representative of similar facilities throughout the state. Ultimately, the costs and benefits are both small enough that the economic impact of the streamlining regulations on the state is minimally positive at best, negligible at worst.
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.
Agency contact
Robert Liska
Department of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Telephone: 608-267-7631.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
NR 211, General Pretreatment Requirement
|
3. Subject
|
Revision of NR 211 to include "Streamlining" rule additions made to the federal pretreatment regulations in 2005.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED ⍽ PRO
⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
None.
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽ State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
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
Adoption of these changes is necessary in order to comply with state law (ss. 283.11(2)), federal pretreatment regulations and to comply with DNR's May 18, 2012, commitment to Region 5 – US EPA, to adopt these measures and address this NR rule deficiency identified by EPA in its July 18,2011, letter to Secretary Stepp.
|
|
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.
|
To revise ch. DHS 163 relating to training, certification and work practice requirements for lead-safe renovation activities in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities.
108 manufacturers, subject to pretreatment requirements, directly regulated by the Department, and
26 municipal pretreatment programs regulating another 320 manufacturers subject to pretreatment requirements.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
The following municipalities provided comments to DNR regarding the impact of these rule changes on their pretreatment programs: City of Beloit, Grand Chute Menasha West Sewerage Commission, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, City of Manitowoc Wastewater Treatment Facility and Walworth County Metropolitan Sewerage District.
|
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)
From August 21, 2012 through September 21, 2012, the department solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule change via a survey distributed to 108 DNR-regulated pretreatment industries and to 26 municipal pretreatment programs. The survey identified eight rule changes that could affect businesses and municipal pretreatment programs and requested comments from the recipients regarding the anticipated annual cost or benefit from the proposed changes. (A copy of the survey is attached in Attachment C.)
Twenty-seven industries and five municipal pretreatment program coordinators responded. Twelve industries reported that the proposed changes would have no effect and 15 reported some anticipated savings, largely from survey items 1-3. Two municipal programs reported that making changes to their sewer use ordinances and industrial permits (survey item 8) could increase up-front costs, one program reported savings from reduced sampling, one reported no change and one responded for local industries rather than the municipal program.
Brief summaries of the economic impacts follow with more detailed breakdowns of survey responses and economic impacts in Tables 1 -3 in Attachment B. The data in these tables were generated by assuming that the responses from industries and municipal programs represented anticipated impacts from all 400 eligible pretreatment industries and all 26 municipal pretreatment programs. Thus, the total of 224 affected industries was generated by assuming that 56% of all industries were affected just as 56% of all industrial respondents (15 of 27) were affected. The average savings of $810 was then applied to all affected industries and distributed over 3 years to allow for delays in implementation. Similarly with municipal programs, 20 of 26 were assumed to be affected because 3 of 4 program respondents reported impacts. The average cost of $15,000 was then applied to 2/3 of the 20 affected programs (13), the average savings of $15,000 was applied to 1/3 of the 20 (6) and both costs and savings were applied to all affected programs and distributed over 3 years.
|
SAVINGS:
Streamlining pretreatment regulations will provide modest savings for industries. These savings result from a decrease in laboratory costs, labor, reporting, and filing burdens. For businesses, the estimated savings of this rule range from $80 to $3000. (See Table 1, Attachment B.) One municipality (Grand Chute-Menasha) predicted saving $15,000-$17,000 per year. (See Table 2, Attachment B).
|
COSTS:
Revising municipal sewer use ordinances and industrial permits will present cost increases to municipal programs. Municipalities will either have to absorb these costs or pass them onto the industries they regulate. However, these revisions are single, one-time program costs, which may be partially offset over time by the benefits of reduced sampling costs and reduced staff time for inspections. Walworth Country Metropolitan Sewerage District estimated upfront costs of $10,094, and the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District estimated upfront costs of $20,000.
There may also be costs, in the form of reduced revenue, for commercial laboratories in Wisconsin as they will receive fewer wastewater samples for testing from industries and programs. According to pretreatment reports submitted by industries, ten laboratories perform the great majority of testing done by these industries. Table 3, (Attachment B), shows the Department's estimates of the economic impact of this reduced revenue on the labs based on the following assumptions:
1) 56% of all eligible industries (224) receive permission to reduce pollutant testing by four tests/year, for an average, reduced revenue to labs of $100/year/industry.
2) 5% of all eligible industries (11) receive permission to eliminate all testing because they qualify as Non-significant Categorical Industrial Users for an average reduction to labs of $500/year/affected industry.
3) 10% of all eligible industries (22) receive permission to reduce all testing by 50%, for an average reduction to labs of $250/year/affected industry.
4) Total revenue reductions ($33,000/year) after all affected industries take advantage of the rule changes will take more than one year to be realized. Reductions have been distributed over 3 years to allow industries and municipalities time to make, or approve, reduced sampling requests and time to request and receive DNR permission to change sewer use ordinances and industrial permits.
|
NO CHANGE:
Twelve businesses, of the 27 that responded, and one municipal respondent, out of four, reported that the proposed rule would have no fiscal impact on their operations:
National Plating; Master Lock Company; Cintas Corporation; Gusmer Enterprises; Wisconsin Paperboard Corp; Alsco; TAB; Precision Metalsmiths; Tasman Leather Group, LLC; Madison Gas and Electric; Glover's Manufacturing, Inc.; Catalytic Converters; and the City of Beloit.
Impacts from the proposed rule changes are also not expected at an additional ten industries, categorized as centralized waste treatment facilities (CWTs) by federal pretreatment regulations. These rule changes will repeal extra requirements for CWTs that conflict with corresponding federal requirements. Because the requirements to be repealed have not been consistently applied, or enforced, their repeal should not add or detract from routine operating expenses at CWTs.
|
ECONOMIC IMPACT:
Based on the responses from 27 industries and four municipal pretreatment programs and Department estimates of the impact to commercial labs, the statewide economic impact of this rule appears to be minor. Because the impact of these changes may take as many as three years to be fully realized, it has been distributed over three years, and beyond, to account for this. (See Table 3.) Totaling the costs and benefits reported by survey respondents, 224 industries likely to be affected by these rule changes may see average savings of $810 each, with total statewide savings approaching $181,000, three years after rule implementation; of the 20 municipal programs likely to be affected, two-thirds of them may see initial, one-time costs averaging $15,000 each and one-third, increasing annual benefits of $15,000 each, culminating in net, total statewide savings of $90,000 annually after 3 years. Finally, the ten commercial laboratories affected may see combined, total revenue losses of $33,000 per year after all affected industries have taken advantage of the rule changes in three years. While we recognize that these facilities are only a sampling of those in the state, we believe that their responses are representative of similar facilities throughout the state. Ultimately, the costs and benefits are both small enough that the economic impact of the streamlining regulations on the state is minimally positive at best, negligible at worst.
|
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
This rule modification offers modest savings in sampling costs to those industries that can meet the requirements and receive DNR or municipal approval, as appropriate. Adopting these changes will also satisfy DNR's 2010 commitment to EPA to make DNR pretreatment requirements consistent with federal requirements.
|
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Industries can realize small cost savings through reduced sampling and testing fees - if they request them and meet the requirements. Municipalities and laboratories will have initial implementation costs but municipalities may achieve small savings over time due to reduced staff time, if they adopt the voluntary, cost-saving measures into their ordinances and industrial permits.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
Rule changes equivalent to those proposed have been in effect in federal pretreatment regulations since 2005.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
All the above neighboring states have already adopted these proposed rule changes into their respective administrative codes.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Robert J. Liska
|
608 267 7631
|
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)
|
Based on responses from industrial manufacturers, about one-half of small business manufacturers are expected to realize small reductions in costs ($810 annually) for wastewater sampling and testing.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
Comments received by the Department from 27 industries regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule changes on their 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
X Other, describe:
The rule's impact on Small Business is expected to be small and beneficial, therefore methods to reduce this impact were not considered. In addition, enactment of the proposed rule changes was presumed because state law (ss. 283.11(2)) requires that state rules comply with and not exceed federal regulations, which already contain the proposed changes.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
The rule adopts the federal “Streamlining" changes to Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements which offer reduced sampling costs to industries that qualify.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
This rule contains no enforcement provisions but the Department follows a "stepped enforcement" policy in which the severity of DNR enforcement responses increases with each succeeding violation, culminating in referral of a facility to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|
ATTACHMENT B
*Note: When savings were reported as a range, the more conservative estimate is listed. To focus on the rule's impact, only reported costs and savings were used in averaging, responses of “No change" were excluded.
*Note: When savings were reported as a range, the more conservative estimate is listed. To focus on the rule's impact, only reported costs and savings were used in averaging, responses of “No change" were excluded.
ATTACHMENT C
August 21, 2012
Subject: Request for comments regarding the economic impact of proposed changes to Wisconsin's General Pretreatment Regulations (Wis. Admin. Code Chap. NR 211)
The Department of Natural Resources is conducting an economic impact analysis of its rule proposal, WT-28-10, that would reduce wastewater pretreatment regulations for regulated industries discharging to sanitary sewers (pretreatment industries) and for municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs. The Department is gathering information to determine if there is an economic effect of the proposed rule on specific businesses, business sectors, local governmental units, and the state economy as a whole. Information and advice is requested from businesses, business associations, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule.
Would you, your business, your association, or your local unit of government be affected economically if this proposed rule implemented the following?
1 Removed sampling requirements for wastewater pollutants, discharged by industries to sanitary sewers, shown to be neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge. (see proposed NR 211.15 (4) (b))
2 Removed pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements for industries never discharging more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of regulated industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer.
(NR 211.15 (4) (d))
3 Reduced pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements (from twice per year to once per year) for industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to. (NR 211.15 (4) (c))
4 Reduced pretreatment inspection requirements for municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs (from once per year to once per two years) when inspecting industries discharging less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to. (NR 211.235 (3) (c))
5 Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to repeat sampling at industries if a test result from the municipal sample exceeded a limit. (NR 211.15 (7))
6 Allowed municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to use a general discharge permit to regulate several similar industries rather than several individual discharge permits. (NR 211.235 (1) (b))
7 Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to include applicable Best Management Practices and slug control measures in industrial discharge permits. (NR 211.235 (1) (am )(intro))
8 Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to revise their sewer use ordinance and industrial permits to include the above changes and submit them to DNR for approval. (NR 211.30 (7) (b))
The proposed rule may be reviewed at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/ww/pret or
http:/adminrules.wisconsin.gov. To request this material in an alternative format, please call Robert Liska at (608) 267-7631 with specific information on your request by
September 15, 2012.
If you expect to be affected economically by this rule proposal please provide as much information as possible to the department contact below regarding any implementation or compliance costs you would expect to incur, quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule, or how the proposed rule would negatively affect your overall economic competitiveness, productivity, or jobs.
Please do NOT submit comments on the revision to the rule at this time. After receiving comments on the economic impact of the rule, the department will prepare an economic impact analysis (EIA) for the proposed rule. Once the EIA process is complete, the department will submit the rule package and EIA to the Legislative Council and hearings on the proposed rule will then be held, in accordance with ss.
227.15,
227.17 and
227.19, Wis. Stats.
Please indicate whether you are responding as a business, small business, business association, local governmental unit, or individual. A small business is defined as an independently owned and operated business that is not dominant in its field and which employs 25 or fewer full-time employees or which has gross annual sales of less than $5,000,000.
Comments are due and shall be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than September 21, 2012. Please provide your email address or phone number in order for the department to contact you if additional information is needed. Written comments on economic effects of the proposal may be submitted via U.S. mail or email to:
Robert Liska
Bureau of Water Quality, WT/3
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
1—
(DNR # ER-27-11)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss.
29.604 227.11, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on changes to s.
NR 27.03 Wisconsin's Endangered/Threatened Species List on the date(s) and at the time(s) and location(s) listed below.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:
Hearing Information
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Locations: Old Library room 1128
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
105 Garfield Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54702
Instructional Services room 1034
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311
Lubar Hall room S250
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
3202 North Maryland Avenue
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Location: Northwoods Room
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Science Operations Center
2801 Progress Road
Madison, WI 53716
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Location: Marathon County Public Library
Wausau room (3rd floor)
300 North First Street
Wausau, WI 54403
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 Madeline Emde at (608) 264-6271 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 Madeline Emde, Bureau of Endangered Resources, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or
madeline.emde@wisconsin.gov.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail or email to Madeline Emde 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 March 7, 2013.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
In
pro
mulgating
this
rule,
s.
227.11(2)(a),
Wis.
Stats.,
has
been interpreted
as
allowing
the
depart
ment
the
authority
to
create
and
a
mend
rules.
Section
29.604 (3)(b),
Wis.
Stats.,
has
been
interpreted
as
allowing
the
depart
ment
the
authori
ty
to
create
and a
mend
the
list
of
Wisconsin's
endangered
and
threatened
species,
NR
27.03,
Wis.
Ad
min.
Code.
Statutory authority
The
state
statutes
that
authorize
the
pro
mulgation
of
this
rule
include
ss.
29.604 227.11,
Wis.
Stats.
Explanation of agency authority
These sections grant rule-making authority for the establishment of an endangered and threatened species list to the department.
Related statutes or rules
Section
29.604 (3),
Wis.
Stats.,
requires
the
Depart
ment
to establish
an
endangered
and
threatened
species
list.
Chapter
NR 27,
Wis.
Ad
min.
Code, provides
the
list
of
endangered
and
threatened
species.
Plain language analysis
The
depart
ment's
Bureau
of
Endangered
Resources
initiated
and co
mpleted
a
review
of
Wisconsin's
rare
specie
s,
and now
proposes
changes
to
Ch.
NR 27,
Wis. Ad
min.
Code,
which
will
add
8
species
and
re
move
16
species
in
Wisconsin
to
the
W
isconsin endangered
and
threatened
species
list, and
will
update
20
scientific
na
mes.
The 8 species the state proposes to add to the endangered and threatened list are:
Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), a bird, is found primarily in the southwest, northwest sands, and northeastern part of the state. Other secondary areas are in the central, southeast, and western parts of the state. This species prefers large, open landscapes with short to mid-height grassy vegetation, including remnant prairie, lightly grazed pastures, barrens, old fields, and other idle grasslands, and hay fields. This species is in decline in Wisconsin, some of the largest declines in its range; once reported at 55 sites. It may disappear from Wisconsin without large blocks of idle and/or grazed grasslands. Add to threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Black Tern (Chlidonias niger), a bird, is found in found in northern, eastern, and central Wisconsin in marshes, river sloughs, rivers, lakeshores, impoundments, and wet meadows, typically in sites with mixture of emergent vegetation and open water. The species is in decline in Wisconsin. Surveys indicate declines as much as 36% in recent years and a 78% decline over 30 years. Once reported at 79 sites, was found only at 7 breeding colonies in 2010. Add to endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica (=Setophaga) kirtlandii), a bird, is found in Adams and Marinette counties in areas at least 30 hectares in size, where scrubby jack pine (2 to 6 meters high) is interspersed with many small openings and minimal ground cover. This species is considered to be “critically imperiled" globally and is currently on the Federal list of endangered species. This species has nested in Wisconsin consistently since 2007; twelve new populations are now known. There are historic records of individuals in the state. Add to endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Beach-dune Tiger Beetle (Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis), a beetle also known as the “hairy-necked tiger beetle", is found on beaches of Lakes Superior and Michigan. This species is rare and declining in Wisconsin (30%). Once reported from 9-10 sites statewide, now only one known viable population remains. Add to endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Fawnsfoot (Truncilla donaciformis), a freshwater mussel, is only known from the Mississippi River and portions of its major tributaries in Wisconsin (St. Croix and Wisconsin River). This species is in decline in Wisconsin. Populations are disappearing range wide. Once widespread and abundant, this species is rarely found in recent years. Numbers have greatly declined in WI's remaining viable populations (St. Croix and Lower Wisconsin Rivers). Add to threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe), a butterfly, is found in nine counties in the southwestern corner of the state on dry to dry-mesic hill prairies, sand prairies, and sand barrens. This species is very rare and in decline in Wisconsin. Once known to 16 sites; as of 2011 only 4 are extant (a 75% decline since the mid-1990s). Many populations are gone range wide. Very few sites have the size, quality, structure, or connectivity to sustain this species. Add to endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
A Leafhopper (Attenuipyga vanduzeei), a small terrestrial insect also known as “a prairie leafhopper" or “shovel-headed leafhopper", is found in the highest quality prairie remnants near the Mississippi and Lower Wisconsin Rivers. This species is very rare in Wisconsin. Only 4 extant populations are known. This species has poor dispersal ability and is sensitive to management and woody encroachment. Add to endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
An Issid Planthopper (Fitchiella robertsoni), a small terrestrial insect also known as “Fitch's Elephanthopper" or “Robertson's Flightless Planthopper" or “Fitch's Planthopper", is found in high quality remnant dry to dry-mesic grasslands in the bluffs along the Mississippi River and in the sand country of northwest Wisconsin. This species is very rare in Wisconsin. Only 4 extant populations are known. Add to threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
The 16 species the state proposes to remove from the endangered and threatened list are:
Barn Owl (Tyto alba), an owl, has a scattered and irregular distribution in the state, mostly the southern half. The species has always been on the edge of its range in Wisconsin and is not considered a regular breeder. In their range, they are found in rural lands or grasslands with some combination of wet meadows, wetland edges, pastures, old-fields, grain crops, hayfields, hedges, and fencerows; usually within 1-2km of permanent water and adjacent to woodlot edge. Nest sites include concrete-domed silos, barns, tree cavities, abandoned farm buildings, church steeples, bank or cliff cavities, and barn owl nest boxes. Remove from the endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii), a small migratory bird, has not been observed breeding in Wisconsin or neighboring states for over 40 years; it is extirpated. Remove from the endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), a waterbird, utilizes a wide variety of wetland habitats in their range, but does not breed in Wisconsin. The species has always been on the edge of its range in Wisconsin and is not considered a regular breeder in the state. Remove from the endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi), a large fish, is found in widely scattered locations in the Lake Michigan and Mississippi River basins. The species appears stable in WI; found consistently in multiple watersheds. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), a turtle, is often found in slow moving rivers, streams, ponds, lakes, marshes, swamps, sloughs, and backwater areas, as well as adjacent terrestrial habitats found in the majority of Wisconsin's counties, except for the north-central tier. Species still slightly declining in WI, however large population numbers and wide distribution. Species is not imperiled in the state. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Butler's Gartersnake (Thamnophis butleri), a snake, is found in open to semi-open canopy wetland and upland habitat, including prairies, sedge meadows, shrub carr, wet meadows, marshes, grasslands, savannas, old fields, pastures, grassy roadsides, and vacant lots in Dodge, Fond du Lac, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha counties. Species appears stable in WI. New information on abundance, range, and hybridization support delisting. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Pygmy Snaketail (Ophiogomphus howei), a small dragonfly, is found in clean, fast flowing, medium to large streams with abundant gravel or sand substrates in northern Wisconsin. These streams are also in largely forested watersheds. Species appears stable in the state. New populations found using modeling of habitat and targeted surveys. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
American Fever-few (Parthenium integrifolium), a composite plant also known as Wild Quinine, is found in dry-mesic to mesic (sometimes wet-mesic) prairie and savanna in mostly loamy to moderately sandy soils in the southwest and southeast corners of the state. The population in Wisconsin appears stable. It is reproducing well on managed and restored sites, and on newly planted sites. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Bog Bluegrass (Poa paludigena), a grass, is found most often growing on banks and atop hummocks, tussocks, and moss-covered logs along small creeks, rivulets, and pools in black ash/yellow birch, black ash/red maple, and black ash/elm swamps throughout the state, perhaps most common in west-central and northwestern Wisconsin in areas bordering the driftless region. Population in Wisconsin appears stable. New records have resulted from inventories. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Canada Horse-balm (Collinsonia canadensis), is a plant in the mint family is also known as Stoneroot, and is considered extirpated in Wisconsin. Elsewhere in its range it has been found in rich beech-maple deciduous forests, as well as occasionally in swampy deciduous forests or oak-hickory and sassafras forests. Documented at only 2 locations in Wisconsin; one is presumed extirpated and the other has not been observed for 150 years. This species is conspicuous and easy to identify. Remove from the endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Drooping Sedge (Carex prasina), a plant in the sedge family, is found in good-quality, mesic hardwood forests encompassing seepages, spring heads, and streamlets and has been found in 11 counties mostly representing widely scattered populations. The population in Wisconsin is stable. It has a narrow habitat preference; however it has a fairly wide distribution and is found regularly in suitable habitat. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Hemlock Parsley (Conioselinum chinense), a plant in the parsley family is considered extirpated. It was found in low, springy, marly ground and old tamarack bogs in Waukesha, Walworth, and Milwaukee counties. Only six native occurrences were known in the state; All are presumed extirpated or historical. Species is conspicuous and easy to identify. Remove from the endangered list [NR27.03(2)].
Prairie Indian-Plantain (Arnoglossum plantagineum = Cacalia tuberosa), a plant in the aster family, is found in open, deep-soiled wet to wet-mesic to dry prairies that are usually calcareous; has been reported from the southern two tiers of counties in Wisconsin, including Grant, Crawford, Lafayette, Iowa, Green, Dane, Rock, Jefferson, Walworth, Waukesha, Kenosha, and Racine counties. It inhabits moist prairies on lakeplains, outwash plains and low moraines in southeastern Wisconsin as well as dry oak openings and bluff prairies in central and southwestern Wisconsin. The population in Wisconsin is stable to increasing; It has responded well to prairie management. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Snowy Campion (Silene nivea), a plant in the pink family, is found in rich woods and alluvial, disturbed floodplains and streambanks, old grasslands, sand prairie, and roadsides. Primarily known from the Driftless area in south-central, southwestern, and western portion of the state. The population in Wisconsin appears stable. It is able to persist with reed canary grass and in degraded streamside habitats and roadside, railroad and utility rights-of-way. Species no longer considered imperiled. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Yellow Gentian (Gentiana alba), a plant in the gentian family is also known as Yellowish Gentian, and is found in dry to moist prairies, savannas and open woods in a wide variety of soil types. In Wisconsin it has been found in 32 counties, mostly in the south-central portion of the state. The population in Wisconsin is increasing. Most of the population expansion and increases have occurred in old fields. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
Yellow Giant Hyssop (Agastache nepetoides), a plant in the mint family, is found in areas with partial sun within dry and dry mesic forests, oak woodlands, oak openings, alluvial forests, as well as the edges of meadows, fencerows, and thickets; primarily found in southern Wisconsin in Crawford, Grant, Lafayette, Green, Rock, Walworth. Racine, Jefferson, Dane, and Columbia counties. The population in Wisconsin is stable to increasing. It has responded well to savanna management and restoration. Remove from the threatened list [NR27.03(3)].
The 20 species the state proposes for a scientific name change are:
• Northern Cricket Frog also known as Blanchard's Cricket Frog (Acris blanchardii change to Acris crepitans), endangered
• Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus change to Helmitheros vermivorum), endangered
• Pallid Shiner (Notropis annis change to Hybopsis amnis), endangered
• Shoal Chub also known as Speckled Chub (Macrhybopsis aestivalis change to Macrhybopsis hyostoma), threatened
• Spatterdock Darner Dragonfly (Aeshna mutata change to Rhionaeschna mutata), threatened
• Obovate Beak Grass (Diarrhena americana change to Diarrhena obovata), endangered
• Canada Gooseberry also known as Hawthorn-leaved Gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides change to Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. oxyacanthoides), threatened
• Cliff Cudweed (Gnaphalium saxicola change to Pseudognaphalium saxicola), threatened
• Early Anemone (Anemone multifida change to Anemone multifida var. multifida), endangered
• Forked Aster (Aster furcatus change to Eurybia furcata), threatened
• Green Spleenwort (Asplenun trichomanes-namosum change to Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum), endangered
• Hall's Bulrush (Scirpus hallii change to Schoenoplectus hallii), endangered
• Hoary Whitlow-cress (Draba lanceolata change to Draba cana), endangered
• Large-leaved Sandwort (Moehringia macrophylla change to Arenaria macrophylla), endangered
• Long-beaked Baldrush also known as Bald Rush (Rhynchosjsora scirysoides change to Rhynchospora scirpoides), threatened
• Plains Ragwort (Senecio indecorus change to Packera indecora), threatened
• Sticky False-asphodel also known as False Asphodel (Tofieldia glutinosa change to Triantha glutinosa), threatened
• Tea-leaved Willow also known as Flat-leaved Willow (Salix planifolia change to Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia), threatened
• Thickspike also known as Thickspike Wheatgrass (Elymus lonceolatus ssp. change to Elytrigia dasystachya ssp. psammophilus), threatened
• Tufted Bulrush also known as Tussock Bulrush (Scirpus cespitosus change to Trichophorum cespitosum), threatened
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the list of Federal endangered and threatened species. The Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii = Setophaga kirtlandii) is the only Federally Listed species that is being proposed for state listing in Wisconsin under this proposal.
Comparison with rules in adjacent stat
es
Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan all have an endangered species law and maintain a state list of endangered and threatened plants and animals. Below are links to their laws and lists, as well as species being proposed under this rule change that are currently listed as endangered or threatened in those states.
• Illinois (1972 law, list last revised in 2009/2010):
• Iowa (1975 law, list last amended in 2009):
• Michigan (1974/1994 law, list last revised in 2009):
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2007-007_NR_Threatened_Endangered_Species_nonstrike_9-12._274586_7.pdf.
Species
currently
on
Wisconsin's
adjacent
states'
endangered
and
threatened
lists
that
will
be revised
in
Wisconsin
under
this
proposed
rule
change:
Species
|
WI Proposed
Rule Change
|
Adjacent States' status [IA, IL, MI, MN]
|
Upland Sandpiper (
Bartramia longicauda)
|
List
|
• IL endangered
|
Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)
|
List
|
• IL endangered
|
Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii)
|
List
|
• MI endangered
|
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
|
Delist
|
• IL endangered
|
Bewick's Wren (
Thryomanes bewickii)
|
Delist
|
• IL endangered
|
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
|
Delist
|
• IA endangered
• IL endangered
• MI endangered
|
Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma
valenciennesi)
|
Delist
|
• IL endangered
|
Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)
|
Delist
|
• IA threatened
• IL endangered
• MN threatened
|
Fawnsfoot (Truncilla donacifor
mis)
|
List
|
• MI threatened
• MN special concern; proposed threatened
|
Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe)
|
List
|
• IL endangered
• MI threatened
• MN threatened list; proposed endangered
|
Pygmy Snaketail (Ophiogomphus
howei)
|
Delist
|
• MI threatened
|
Beach-dune Tiger Beetle (Cicindela
hirticollis rhodensis)
|
List
|
• MN special concern; proposed
endangered
|
Bog Bluegrass (Poa paludigena)
|
Delist
|
• MI threatened
• MN threatened
|
Drooping Sedge (Carex prasina)
|
Delist
|
• IL threatened
|
Hemlock Parsley (Conioselinum chinense)
|
Delist
|
• IL endangered
|
Snowy Campion (Silene nivea)
|
Delist
|
• MI threatened
• MN threatened
|
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department's Bureau of Endangered Resources (ER) initiated and completed a review of Wisconsin's endangered and threatened species list, culminating in a list of recommended revisions. The proposed rule is related to the addition of eight (8) species and removal of sixteen (16) species from the state's endangered and threatened species list, and the updating of 20 scientific names.
Guiding the list review was the Endangered and Threatened List Revision Process document which was developed and approved in 2006 by the ER Policy Tea
m. This guidance document recommends conducting a list-wide review at least every 5 years and earlier as needed, based on changes in species population condition. “As needed" triggers include significant change in the state or global conservation rank, taxono
mic change, recovery goals met, immediate need for protection, or significant new data on a single species or group of species.
Per the revision process document, the international Natural Heritage Invento
ry (NHI) system of global and state conservation ranks is the primary trigger for initiating a comprehensive assess
ment of a species. NHI Programs and NatureServe, the NHI umbrella organization, use a suite of factors to assess the extinction or extirpation risk of plants, animals, and ecosystems, and to assign conservation ranks at global, national, and state levels. In 2009, NatureServe developed a rank calculator tool to support the process of assigning conservation status ranks. NatureServe's Ele
ment Rank Calculator Tool was used to update state conservation ranks and is used by NatureServe to update Global and National Conservation Ranks. The category of factors used to assess conservation status are rarity, trends, and threats.
Because state conservation ranks are dynamic and can reflect changes in population condition and new information quickly, they have proven useful in directing action toward species most in need of conservation. Updates to conservation ranks for Wisconsin's endangered, threatened, and special concern species are published almost annually in the NHI Working List. The most recent version of the NHI Working List was last published on 6/1/2011 and incorporates many of the results of the review process.
Biologists from a varie
ty of state and national agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as naturalists throughout the state with taxonomic expertise provided new or updated information on the population condition and distribution of rare species in the state. Department biologists focused attention and resources on species that are most at risk of extirpation in the state and where application of Wisconsin's Endangered Species Law would be effective in their protection.
Status assessments were conducted and resulted in the proposed list changes. A database was created to capture information received and decisions made to promote consistency and transparency in the process. Details on the process and the results, including species distribution maps and status reviews can be found on the department's website (keywords “ET List").
These rule changes were developed with the assistance of the Bureaus of Endangered Resources, Science Services, Wildlife Management, and Legal Services.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
Pursuant
to
s.
227.137,
Wis.
Stats.,
the
depart
ment
is
required
to
solicit
com
ments
on
the econo
mic
i
mpact
of
proposed
rule. S
mall
businesses,
as
defined
in
s.
227.114(1),
Wis.
Stats., are
asked
to
identi
fy
the
mselves
as
a
s
mall
business
in
their
com
ments. Following
the
public com
ment
period
for
the
EIA,
a
revised
"Fiscal
Anal
ysis
and
Econo
mic
I
mpact
Anal
ysis"
will
be prepared
containing
relevant
infor
mation
that
the
depart
ment
receives. Once
the
EIA
process
is co
mpleted,
the
depart
ment
will
sub
mit
the
rule
package
and
eco
no
mic
impact
anal
ysis
to
the
Wisconsin
Legislative
Council
under
s.
227.15,
W
is.
Stats.,
and
hearings
on
the
proposed
rule
will be
held
by
the
depart
ment
after
proper
notice
in
accordance
with
ss.
227.17 and
227.18,
Wis. Stats. If
the
EIA
indicates
that
the
proposed
rule
is
reasonably
expected
to
have a total
i
mpact
of $20,000,000
in
i
mple
mentation
and
co
mpliance
costs,
the
depart
ment
shall
sub
mit
the
rule
to
the Depart
ment
of
Ad
ministration
in
accordance
with
s.
227.137(6),
Wis.
Stats.
A
s
mall
business
regulatory
flexibili
ty
anal
ysis
that
contains
the
following
provisions
in
s.
227.19(3)(e),
Stats.,
will
be
included
in
the
final
rule
order:
1.
The
agenc
y's reason
for
inclu
ding or
failing
to include
in
the proposed
rule a
ny
of
the
methods
specified
under s.
227.114 (2) for
reducing
its
i
mpact
on
s
mall
businesses.
2. A summary of issues raised by small businesses during the hearings on the proposed rule, any changes in the proposed rule as a result of alternatives suggested by small businesses and the reasons for rejecting any alternatives suggested by small businesses.
3. The nature of any reports and the estimated cost of their preparation by small businesses that must comply with the rule.
4. The nature and estimated cost of other measures and investments that will be required of small businesses in complying with the rule.
5.
The
additional
cost,
if
an
y, to
the agency
of
ad
ministering
or
enforcing
a
rule
which includes
any
of
the
methods
specified
under s.
227.114 (2).
6.
The
i
mpact
on
public
health,
safety
and
welfare,
if an
y,
caused
by
including
in
the
rule any
of
the
methods
specified
under s.
227.114 (2).
The Department's email distribution list used to solicit comments includes small businesses and small business associations. The distribution list will be sub
mitted to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Compliance.
Effect on Small Business
Affected constituencies include agricultural and forestry industries, commercial and development businesses, natural resources consultants, utilities, road builders and wildlife rehabilitators.
Most
often
the
public
and
s
mall
businesses
beco
me
aware
of
the
endangered
species
law through
one
of
DNR's
permitting
processes.
W
isconsin's
endangered
species
law
is i
mple
mented
by
the
depart
ment
in
that
any
activi
ty
that
the
depart
ment
conducts,
funds
or approves
must
consider
i
mpacts
to
listed
species (s.29.604
Wis.
Stats.). Both
endangered
and threatened
species
have
the
sa
me
level
of
legal
protection. Under
Wisconsin's
law
listed
ani
mals are
protected
on
all
public and
private
land. Plants are only
protected
on
public
land
and agricultural,
forestr
y,
and
utility
activities
are
exe
mpt
from this
protection
(s.
29.604 Wis.
Stats.)
In most instances, a permit applicant provides a description of the proposed project. Department staff perform an endangered resources review utilizing the Natural Heritage Inventory database to determine if 1) there is a listed species that may be present, and if 2) the project area has suitable habitat for that species. If either of these criteria are not present the applicant is informed that there is no potential impact and the project proceeds. Over 2/3 of projects fall into this category.
If both the species is known to be in the area and there is suitable habitat on the project site, the department works with the applicant to see if impacts to a listed species may be avoided through seasonal adjustments, temporary removals or barriers. If it can, the project proceeds. If impacts can't be avoided, an incidental take permit is issued to the applicant that allows take of the species. State law requires that all projects under an incidental take per
mit must minimize and mitigate these impacts. (s.29.604 Wis. Stats.). When the minimization and mitigation
measures are in place, the permit is publicly noticed the project may proceed. Very few projects require an incidental take permit, typically fewer than 20 a year are issued.
The species being proposed for removal from the endangered and threatened species list have a total of 1055 records in the NHI database which is used for conducting an endangered resources review. There are a total of 217 records in the NHI database for the species being proposed for addition.
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.
A
Copy
of
any
Comments
and
Opinion
Prepared
by
the
Board of
Veterans
Affairs under S.
45.03 (2m),
Stats.,
for
Rules
Proposed
by
the
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs
Not applicable
Environmental Impact
This action is a type II action under Chapter
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, thus requiring an Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment is available with the proposed rule and supporting documents and may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. A copy of the documents may also be obtained from Madeline Emde, Bureau of Endangered Resources, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or
madeline.emde@wisconsin.gov.
The Department has also made a preliminary determination that this action is not a major and significant action under s 1.11, Wis. Stat., and therefore does not require the Environmental Impact Statement process.
Agency Contact Person
Erin
Crain,
Depart
ment
of
Natural
Resources,
Endangered
Resources –
ER/6,
P.O.
Box
7921, Madison,
WI
53707-792;
Telephone:
(608)
267-7479;
E
mail:
Erin.Crain@ wisconsin.gov.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Chapter NR 27, Wisconsin's List of Endangered/Threatened Species NR 27.03 (2) and (3).
|
3. Subject
|
Revisions to NR 27.03 list of Endangered/Threatened Species [Board Order ER-27-11] to add 8 animals and remove 16 plants and animals, and to update 20 scientific names.
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
X Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
X Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
|
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
⍽ State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
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
|
State statute, s. 29.604 (3) (b) Wis. Stats., gives the DNR the authority to periodically review and, after public hearing, to revise the Endangered and Threatened species (E/T) list.
Updating the E/T list to focus conservation efforts and avoidance/minimization measures on WI's most at risk species will ultimately save money. All actions that the Department conducts, funds or approves on public or private lands must be screened for potential impacts to rare species. Most often the public and small businesses become aware of the endangered species law through one of DNR's permitting processes. Wisconsin's endangered species law is implemented by the department in that any activity that the department conducts, funds or approves must consider impacts to listed species (s.29.604 Wis. Stats.). Both endangered and threatened species have the same level of legal protection. Under Wisconsin's law listed animals are protected on all public and private land. Plants are only protected on public land and agricultural, forestry, and utility activities are exempt from this protection (s. 29.604 Wis. Stats.).
Endangered Resources Screening relies on Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) data for records of rare species occurrences. The number of NHI records for species proposed for addition to the E/T list is far fewer than the number of records for species proposed for delisting – eight species are proposed for listing (with a total of 217 NHI occurrences) versus 16 species proposed for delisting (with a total of 1055 NHI occurrences). Reducing the number of E/T species records will lessen regulatory impacts to businesses and individuals.
|
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.
|
Groups likely to be impacted or interested in the issue include the conservation community, project applicants through the environmental review process, and the general public. Affected constituencies include agricultural and forestry industries, commercial and development businesses, natural resources consultants, utilities, road builders and wildlife rehabilitators.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
Pursuant to s. 227-137 Wis. Stats., the department was required to solicit comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule, and if requested to coordinate with local governments in the preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). The notice to solicit comments was sent to the county and town associations in the state. Comments were collected between 9/24/2012 and 10/24/2012. A total of 18 comments were received; 8 were economic comments that were incorporated into the EIA. No local governments submitted comments or requested we coordinate with them in the preparation 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 economic cost of listing and delisting a species is highly dependant on its range and distribution, seasonal occurrence, habitat requirements, management needs, sensitivity to disturbance, etc. Effects of listing/delisting will be highly variable among different types of businesses and their locations and hard to predict, however the overall economic impact of the proposed revisions will be reduced because of the location and number of NHI records. The 16 species being proposed for removal from the endangered and threatened species list have a total of 1055 records in the NHI database which is used for conducting an endangered resources review. There are a total of 217 records in the NHI database for the eight species being proposed for addition.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
Updating the E/T list to focus conservation efforts and avoidance/minimization measures on WI's most at risk species will ultimately save money. All actions that the Department conducts, funds or approves on public or private lands must be screened for potential impacts to rare species. Endangered Resources Screening relies on NHI data for records of rare species occurrences. The number of NHI records for species proposed for addition to the E/T list is far fewer than the number of records for species proposed for delisting – eight species are proposed for listing (with a total of 217 NHI occurrences) versus 16 species proposed for delisting (with a total of 1055 NHI occurrences). Reducing the number of E/T species records will lessen regulatory impacts to businesses and individuals.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The primary short-term and long-term effects of this revision are to provide greater protection for those plants and animals that are critically rare in Wisconsin and will likely be lost or undergo severe population declines if not granted protection, by focusing conservation efforts and avoidance/minimization measures on the most at risk species. As the endangered species law (s. 29.415, Stats.) is already in effect, there will be no change in Department policy regarding means to conserve these species. The removal and addition of species to the list will likely require increased consultation with Department staff during environmental assessments and reviews. Enforcement requirements will not be significantly increased.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service maintains the list of Federal endangered and threatened species. The Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica (=Setophaga) kirtlandii) is the only Federally Listed species that is being proposed for state listing in Wisconsin under this proposal.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan all have an endangered species law and maintain a state list of endangered and threatened plants and animals. Sixteen of the 24 species being proposed for addition or removal from the list are listed or are being considered for listing in a neighboring state.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Erin Crain
|
608/267-747
|
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)
|
[Detailed EIA report attached] (In original. Not printed in Register. See Availability of Rules section of this notice.)
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
Bureau of Endangered Resources staff; WDNR's Economist; and from the public comments received during the EIA comment period.
|
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
X Other, describe:
Because this rule does not create new regulatory requirements of small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
Most often the public and small businesses become aware of the endangered species law through one of DNR's permitting processes. Wisconsin's endangered species law is implemented by the department in that any activity that the department conducts, funds or approves must consider impacts to listed species (s.29.604 Wis. Stats.). Both endangered and threatened species have the same level of legal protection. Under Wisconsin's law listed animals are protected on all public and private land. Plants are only protected on public land and agricultural, forestry, and utility activities are exempt from this protection (s. 29.604 Wis. Stats.).
In most instances, a permit applicant provides a description of the proposed project. Department staff perform an endangered resources review utilizing the NHI database to determine if 1) there is a listed species that may be present, and if 2) the project area has suitable habitat for that species. If either of these criteria are not present the applicant is informed that there is no potential impact and the project proceeds. Over 2/3 of projects fall into this category. If both the species is known to be in the area and there is suitable habitat on the project site, the department works with the applicant to see if impacts to a listed species may be avoided through seasonal adjustments, temporary removals or barriers. If it can, the project proceeds. If impacts can't be avoided, an incidental take permit is issued to the applicant that allows take of the species. State law requires that all projects under an incidental take permit must minimize and mitigate these impacts. (s.29.604 Wis. Stats.). When the minimization and mitigation measures are in place, the permit is publicly noticed the project may proceed. Very few projects require an incidental take permit, typically fewer than 20 a year are issued. The department has also created several broad incidental take permits to provide blanket incidental take coverage for routine activities. A broad incidental take permit, unlike an individual incidental take permit, does not require an application, processing time or a fee. The most recent broad incidental take permits cover grassland management and cave bats.
The removal and addition of species to the list will likely require increased consultation with Department staff during environmental assessments and reviews.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
Enforcement and administration programs for rules and permits are already in place. No changes are expected in rule enforcement costs or the costs of issuing permits for endangered and threatened species. Increases can be expected in the amount of time required to administer the resulting list of endangered and threatened species, but costs are expected to be absorbed within existing DNR budgets. Management and protection costs will increase with the addition of new species to the list and decrease with removals; given the number of species and records of occurrences, it is expected that costs will decrease.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services—
Physical Therapy Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Physical Therapy Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) (a),
440.035 (1),
448.527 and
448.57, Stats., and interpreting ss.
448.527 and
448.57, Stats., the Physical Therapy Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend ss.
PT 7.01 (title) and
8.02; to repeal and recreate s.
PT 7.02; and to create ss.
PT 7.01 (1) and
7.025 relating to unprofessional conduct and biennial renewal date.
Hearing Information
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2013
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 121
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 Submission
Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy and Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, 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 March 7, 2013to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, 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
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Examining boards are generally empowered by the legislature pursuant to ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) (a), and
440.035 (1), Stats. to promulgate rules that govern their profession. The Physical Therapy Examining Board has been specifically empowered by ss.
448.527 and
448.57, Stats., to promulgate rules concerning standards of unprofessional conduct that govern licensees within the profession. Therefore, the Physical Therapy Examining Board is authorized both generally and specifically to promulgate these proposed rules.
Related statute or rule
Wisconsin Administrative Code chs.
PT 7 and
PT 8.
Plain language analysis
2009 Wis. Act 149 transformed the Physical Therapy Affiliated Credentialing Board into the Physical Therapy Examining Board. The newly formed examining board decided to review their unprofessional conduct rules. The Board also decided to take this opportunity to bring the current unprofessional conduct rules in line with the American Physical Therapist Association (APTA) “Code of Ethics". The APTA passed a revised “Code of Ethics" in June of 2010 which became effective in July of 2010. The “Code of Ethics" discussed the core values of the physical therapy profession. The core values include accountability, altruism, compassion, excellence, integrity and professional duty and responsibility. The proposed rules seek to encapsulate these principals and modernize the unprofessional conduct standards at the same time.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois: Illinois sets forth its grounds for unprofessional conduct Ill Admin. Code tit. 68 §1340.65 (2012) and incorporates by reference the June of 2000 APTA “Code of Ethics".
Iowa: Iowa sets forth a code of ethics for physical therapist and physical therapist assistants. The code of ethics details what a licensed Physical therapist or physical therapist assistant must do in order to practice within minimally competent parameters. Iowa Admin. Code r. 645-201.1 (148A.272 C)(2012) Iowa also sets forth its grounds for discipline in which it identifies acts that will result in disciplinary sanctions. Iowa Admin. Code 645.202.2 (272C) (2012)
Michigan: Michigan does not incorporate a code of ethics or maintain grounds for unprofessional conduct with regards to the practice of physical therapy. Michigan does, however, have provisions regarding prohibited conduct under Mich. Admin. Code 3338.7124 (2012)
Minnesota: Similar to Iowa, Minnesota sets forth its grounds for disciplinary action in Minn. Stat. 148.75 (2011) and a Code of Ethical Practice in Minn. R. 5601.3200(2012) Any violation of the Code of Ethical Practice is also grounds for disciplinary action. Minnesota also incorporates the APTA's Code of Ethics as an aide to interpreting its Code of Ethical Practice.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Board ensures the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data that was used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis. No additional factual data or analytical methodology was used in drafting these proposed rules other than the Board's review of the rule for the purpose of modernization.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This proposed rule will not have an impact on small business as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
Fiscal estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
This proposed rule will not have an impact on small business as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-4438; email at
Shancethea.Leatherwood@wisconsin.gov.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original
⍽ Updated ⍽Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Wis. Admin. Code Chs. PT 7 & PT 8
|
3. Subject
|
Standards of professional conduct and biennial license renewal
|
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 proposed rule seeks to modernize the unprofessional conduct standards and correct the current biennial renewal date reflected in Wis. Admin. Code s. PT 8. Prompted by the American Physical Therapist Association (APTA) revision of its “Code of Ethics" the Physical Therapy Examining Board decided to review its unprofessional conduct rules. The APTA's Code of Ethics, which became effective in July of 2010, discussed the core values of the physical therapy profession including accountability, altruism, compassion, excellence, integrity, professional duty and responsibility. These are the principles the profession aspires to uphold. The Board sought to codify these principles within the unprofessional conduct standards as mandated by in s. 448.527, Stats.
|
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.
|
This proposed rule will primarily affect licensed physical therapists and physical therapist assistants. The rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website for 14 days in order to solicit comments from the public regarding the rule. No comments were received from the public regarding the rule.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
No local governmental units participated 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)
|
This rule will have 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.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The main benefit of implementing the proposed rule is bringing relevant Wis. Admin. Code into conformity with recent changes within the profession. Another benefit is changing the necessary language in Wis. Admin. Code Ch. PT 8 to reflect the correct biennial renewal date. The alternative to implementing the proposed rule is allowing the current Wis. Admin. Code PT 7 and PT 8 to remain outdated.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Providing greater guidance to licensed physical therapists and physical therapist assistants regarding maintaining the ethical standards within their profession.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
N/A
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Iowa
Iowa sets forth a code of ethics for physical therapist and physical therapist assistants. The code of ethics details what a licensed physical therapist or physical therapist assistants must do in order to practice within minimally competent parameters. Iowa Admin. Code r. 645-201.1 (148A.272 C)(2012) Iowa also sets forth its grounds for discipline in which it identifies acts that will result in disciplinary sanctions. Iowa Admin. Code 645.202.2 (272C) (2012
Illinois
Illinois sets forth its grounds for unprofessional conduct Ill Admin. Code tit. 68 §1340.65 (2012) and incorporates by reference the June of 2000 APTA's “Code of Ethics".
Minnesota
Similar to Iowa, Minnesota sets forth its grounds for disciplinary action in Minn. Stat. 148.75 (2011) and a Code of Ethical Practice in Minn. R. 5601.3200(2012). Any violation of the Code of Ethical Practice is also grounds for disciplinary action. Minnesota also incorporates the APTA's Code of Ethics as an aide to interpreting its Code of Ethical Practice.
Michigan
Michigan does not incorporate a code of ethics or maintain grounds for unprofessional conduct with regards to the practice of physical therapy. Michigan does, however, have provisions regarding prohibited conduct under Mich. Admin. Code 3338.7124 (2012)
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Shawn Leatherwood
|
608-261-4438
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services—
Medical Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Medical Examining Board in s.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) (a), and
448.40 (1), Stats., and interpreting s.
448.40 (1), Stats., the Medical Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal s.
Med 10.02 (2); to amend Med 10.01 (1) (title); to repeal and recreate 10.02 (1); and to create Med 10.01 (1) and 10.03 (title), relating to unprofessional conduct.
Hearing Information
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 121
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 Submission
Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 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 March 20, 2013 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, 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
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The legislature, via. ss.
15.08 (5) (b), and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., conferred upon the Medical Examining Board general power to promulgate rules for the guidance of the profession and to interpret the provisions of statutes it enforces. Section
448.40 (1), Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules that carry out the purposes of the Medical Practices sub chapter. Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Med 10 Unprofessional Conduct is administered by the Medical Examining Board; as such the Board has statutory authority to revise Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Med 10 for the purpose of providing guidance within the profession.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule seeks to modernize Wis. Admin Code Ch.
Med 10 Unprofessional Conduct by overhauling the current version of the rules, adding language that specifically addresses new topic areas, delete outdated language of some provisions and augment others.
SECTION 1. amends the title of the authority provision.
SECTION 2. amends the rule by adopting an statement of intent that provides guidance on how the rules should be interpreted.
SECTION 3. repeals and recreates the definitions section adding several new terms.
SECTION 4. This section repeals the current definitions of unprofessional conduct.
SECTION 5. creates a new section defining unprofessional conduct.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
There is no comparative existing or proposed federal rule.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The following comparisons are the result of various internet searches:
Illinois: The grounds for administering disciplinary actions against physicians in Illinois are set forth in
225 ILCS 60/ 22 (2012).PART 1285.200-1285.275 MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT OF 1987: Sections Listing The processes for administering the disciplinary proceedings are stated in the Illinois Code of Regulation Title 68: Professions and Occupations Chapter VII: Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Subchapter B: Professions and Occupations
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/ admincode/068/06801285sections.html.
Iowa: Grounds for disciplining health care professionals in Iowa are codified in Iowa Code §
147.55 and through the Iowa Administrative Code 653-23.1(272C).
http://www.legis. state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/4-21-2010.653.23.pdf
Michigan: The grounds for disciplinary action against health care professionals in Michigan are codified in the Public Health Code, Public Act 368 of 1978 (2010 PA 101, MCL 333.16221.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ (S(j4bg0h454voc1545vsgjncnx))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-333-16221.pdf.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies:
The Medical Examining Board approved a work group which was convened to gather information and consider unprofessional conduct rules from different states. The work group, over a series of board meetings, presented the full Medical Examining Board recommended language. The recommend language drafted by the work group was then considered by the full board. The work group also sought out input from stakeholders such as the Wisconsin Medical Society (WMS) and the Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA). The full board compared and contrasted the work group language with language from WHA and WMS as well as recommended language from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). This collaboration resulted in a comprehensive review of the rules in their entirety. The board ensures 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
The department finds that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
The department finds that this rule will have no effect on small business as small business is defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Shawn Leatherwood, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Board Services, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-4438; email at
Shancethea.Leatherwood@wisconsin.gov.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Wis. Admin. Code ch. Med 10
|
3. Subject
|
Unprofessional Conduct
|
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 policy problem addressed by the proposed rule is removing outdated material from the current Wis. Admin Code s. Med 10. The current rules have not been reviewed in several years. The Board took this opportunity to modernize the rules by making significant changes to the content and form of the rule. Subsections were removed which made reference to outdated terminology. Content was added when it provided greater clarity to a principle that was already reflected in the rule.
|
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.
|
This proposed rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website and on the Wisconsin government website for 14 business days to solicit comments from the public. No businesses, business sectors, associations representing business local governmental units or individuals contacted the department about the proposed rule.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
No local governmental units participated 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)
|
None.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The primary benefit of implementing the rule is it will provide health care practitioners greater guidance on standards of professional conduct within their profession. The changes should also create more effective enforcement of violations of unprofessional conduct.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The long range implications of implementing the rule includes impacting the conduct of individual practitioners so as to raise the level of awareness of ethical practice within the medical profession resulting in greater compliance with ethical standards.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
There are no comparable approaches being used by the Federal Government.
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Illinois: The grounds for administering disciplinary actions against physicians in Illinois are set forth in 225 ILCS 60/ 22 (2012). The processes for administering the disciplinary proceedings are stated in the Illinois Code of Regulation Title 68: Professions and Occupations Chapter VII: Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Subchapter B: Professions and Occupations PART 1285.200-1285.275 MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT OF 1987: Sections Listing
Iowa: Grounds for disciplining health care professionals in Iowa are codified in Iowa Code § 147.55 and through the Iowa Administrative Code 653-23.1(272C). http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/ACODocs/DOCS/4-21-2010.653.23.pdf
Michigan: The grounds for disciplinary action against health care professionals in Michigan are codified in the Public Health Code, Public Act 368 of 1978 (2010 PA 101, MCL 333.16221. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(j4bg0h454voc1545vsgjncnx))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-333-16221.pdf
Minnesota: The grounds for administering disciplinary action against physicians in Minnesota are stated in Minn. Stat. §147.091. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/data/revisor/statute/2009/147/2009-147.091.pdf
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
|
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearing
Safety and Professional Services—
Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b) and
457.03 (1), Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss.
457.12,
457.13,
457.14,
457.15,
457.16, and
457.22, Wis. Stats., the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal and recreate ss.
MPSW 10.01(6) and
MPSW 14.01 relating to education.
Hearing Information
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Time: 1:00 p.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 Submission
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
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on February 26, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of 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
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The 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 profession. The examining board shall promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for educational programs that must be completed for certification or licensure.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
Section 1 repeals and recreates a definition of supervision. Supervision is a means of transmitting skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Supervision allows for monitoring the quality of services offered by the supervisee to enhance the quality of skills and services provided by the counselor-in-training. It provides structure for monitoring the professional services provided by the counselor-in-training.
Section 2 repeals and recreates s.
MPSW 14.01 relating to the criteria necessary for an academic program to be equivalent to a master's degree in professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling. Currently at least 42 credit hours are required and this rule would increase the number of hours required in the program to be comparable to the majority of states, including our neighboring states.
The course work is to be in a field closely related to professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling. The course work must total at least 48 semester hours or 72 quarter hours of academic credit including the following:
• 3 semester hours or 4 quarter hours of a supervised practicum with minimum of 100 hours of practicum experience including at least 40 hours of face-to-face client contact.
• 6 semester hours or 4 quarter hours in a supervised internship of a minimum of 600 hours of internship experience including at least 240 hours of face-to-face client contact.
• 3 semester hours or 4 quarter hours in counseling theory or counseling approaches course which includes a variety of theoretical models .
• 3 semester hours or 4 quarter hours in each of the following topic areas:
• Human growth and development
• Social and cultural foundations
• The helping relationship
• Group dynamics processing and counseling
• Lifestyle and career development
• Appraisal of individuals
• Research and evaluation
• Professional counseling orientation
• 6 semester or 8 quarter hours in one of the following:
• If the academic program's emphasis is in mental health, course(s) addressing the roles and functions of a mental health counseling.
• If the academic program's emphasis is in rehabilitation counseling, course(s) addressing medical, functional, and environmental aspects of disability, rehabilitation services, case management and related services.
• As part of the above curriculum, the program shall contain a basic understanding of addiction and how to assess and intervene with individuals, groups and families who exhibit suicide ideation, psychological and emotional crisis or trauma. These are not required to be stand alone courses.
These new requirements are in line with the standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE).
Section 3. An effective date of September 1, 2016 will provide the time necessary for the education programs to make adjustments in their course offerings and curriculum. In addition, it will provide notice to the students pursuing their master's degrees of the new requirements.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois: Illinois requires a master's or doctoral degree with a minimum of 48 semester hours or 72 quarter hours with a minimum of 3 semester hours in each of the following areas: Human growth and development; Counseling theory; Counseling techniques; Group dynamics, processing and counseling; Appraisal of individuals; Research and evaluation; Professional, legal and ethical responsibilities relating to professional counseling; Social and cultural foundations; Lifestyle and career development; Practicum/internship; Psychopathology and maladaptive behavior; Substance abuse; and Family dynamics. The program shall include a one year residence defined as 24 semester hours. All master's degrees and doctoral programs in professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling that are accredited by CACREP, CORE and doctoral programs in psychology approved by the American Psychological Association and the Council for the National Registry of health Service Providers are approved programs.
Iowa: Iowa requires a master's degree with a minimum of 60 credit hours or equivalent quarter hours or a doctoral degree in counseling with emphasis in mental health counseling from a mental health counseling program accredited by CACREP. Graduates from non-CACREP accredited mental health counseling programs shall provide an equivalency evaluation of their educational credentials by the Center for Credentialing and Education, Inc.
Michigan: Michigan requires a master's degree of not less than 48 semester hours or 72 quarter hours, including a 600 clock hour internship, in a program which meets CACREP standards.
Minnesota: Minnesota requires a master's or doctoral degree of not less than 48 semester hours or 72 quarter hours and a supervised field experience of not fewer than 700 hours that is counseling in nature. The degree program must be from a counseling program recognized by CACREP or from an institution of higher education that is accredited by a regional accrediting organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Specific academic course content must include the following subject areas: The helping relationship, including counseling theory and practice; Human growth and development; Lifestyle and career development; Group dynamics, processes, counseling and consulting; Assessment and appraisal; Social and cultural foundations, including multicultural issues; Principles of etiology, treatment planning, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders and dysfunctional behavior; Family counseling and therapy; Research and evaluation; and Professional counseling orientation and ethics.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Professional Counselors Section of the Marriage & Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board reviewed the standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) and the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE), researched the requirements of other states and convened a task force of educators in the areas of mental health counseling and rehabilitation counseling.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
This rule addresses criteria for determining whether a program is equivalent to a master's degree in professional counseling and will not have an effect on small business. The requirements in the proposed rule are comparable to our neighboring states.
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
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
Greg.Gasper@wisconsin.gov, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
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 608-261-2377; email at
Sharon.Henes@wisconsin.gov.
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X Original ⍽
Updated
⍽ Corrected
|
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
MPSW 10, 14 relating to education requirements
|
3. Subject
|
Education Requirements
|
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED X PRO ⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
|
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
X 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 policy problem addressed by this rule is the criteria necessary for an academic program to be equivalent to a master's degree in professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling. The revisions to the rule would increase the number of hours required in the program to be comparable to the majority of states, including our neighboring states. The new requirements are in line with the standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs (CACREP) and the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE).
|
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.
|
Applicants for licensure as a professional counselor.
|
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
|
None.
|
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
There is no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units. In preparation of the EIA, the rule was posted for economic comments for a period of at least 14 days and received no comments.
|
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The benefits to implementing the rule is to align our requirements with the standards of CACREP and CORE and to have our number of hours be comparable t the majority of states.
The alternative to the proposed change would be to have a lack of clarity in the course requirements standards as to what constitutes an equivalent program to a master's degree in professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling.
|
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
The long range implication is for clarity in determining which programs are equivalent to a master's degree in professional counseling or rehabilitation counseling. The rule does have a future effective date of September 1, 2016 to provide the time necessary for the education programs to make adjustments in their course offerings and curriculum as well as give notice to the students pursuing their master's degrees.
|
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
None
|
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
|
Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota require 48 semester hours. Iowa requires 60 credit hours. CACREP standards must be met in Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota. Illinois approves programs which are accredited by CACREP and CORE.
|
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
|
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
